Experts debate Hamas victory

The recent Hamas electoral victory may lead to increased legitimacy for the Palestinian Authority among its own people, but it has created problems for an international community that will not negotiate with a terrorist group, members of the panel "Handling Hamas" said Tuesday.

Edmund Hull '71, former U.S. ambassador to Yemen and diplomat-in-residence at the Wilson School, said the United States wants Hamas to agree to specific requirements before negotiations can begin.

These include accepting Israel's right to exist, refraining from violence and showing deference to foundations of the peace process, including U.N. resolutions.

Until then, assistance to Palestinians, not including strictly humanitarian aid, has been scaled back.

Though he said "the U.S. is likely to follow the Israeli lead" in policy, the United States and international community "theoretically could engage in a negotiation process" with Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is not in Hamas.

Hull also faulted Israel's unilateral steps to withdraw from settlements in the Gaza Strip, since pulling out could be seen as rewarding violence.

Kamal Abdelfattah, a panelist visiting Princeton from Birzeit University in the West Bank, said Palestinians voted for Hamas because they wanted serious negotiations and government accountability.

"I don't know any Palestinian who voted for Hamas because they wanted another war," Abdelfattah said.

Abdelfattah added that there is great pressure on Hamas to deliver what Fatah, the party of Abbas and the late Yasser Arafat, could not. For Hamas, he said, "it is better to be ousted as heroes" and isolated by the international community than it would be to lose popularity over the years, as Fatah did.

Azli Bali, a Ph.D. candidate in the politics department, called the Hamas electoral victory a "fantastic accomplishment," especially when compared to neighboring countries without vocal political dissent, since the Palestinians were "able to end one-party rule."

Bali elicited strong responses from the audience throughout the discussion. When she compared "Israel and Palestine's territory situation to America and Native American history," Zvi Smith '09 said, "Both the ambassador and I started smiling very broadly."

Smith said he thought these discussions are useful as long as they stick to the set topic, but dislikes when they "devolve into generalizations about the Middle East, or Israelis or Palestinians."

One of those in attendance, Sam Sternin, a graduate student in the Wilson School, said he hopes that Israel will take into account the fact that Hamas has largely maintained a ceasefire during the past two years, since this action is more significant than the group's anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Saed Shonnar '08 shared Sternin's optimism, saying that Hamas officials have come a long way in how they speak about Israel, since they now often refer to it by its name instead of the "Zionist entity." He worries that discrediting Hamas is comparable to "slamming all the Palestinians who voted for Hamas."

Smith, however, disagrees about what the response to Hamas' election should be. He said Palestinians should take responsibility for their electoral decisions, and understand that if they elect a radical Islamic party — even democratically — many nations will be unwilling to work with them.

"Even though, for social reasons, it may have been a better option, [Hamas] still calls for the destruction of Israel," he said.