Bush administration officials are trying to formulate U.S. policy in the event of a likely victory by the Hamas terrorist group in elections for the Palestinian Authority governing council.
The rising popularity of Hamas in PA-administered areas in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza has prompted PA chief Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party to postpone those elections, originally scheduled for July 17. Abbas believes that the planned Israeli expulsion of its residents from Gaza and northern Samaria will boost his ratings before the electoral bout.
The Hamas leadership has strongly objected to postponing the elections, which are being showcased by the United States as another victory for democracy, a dividend of seemingly endless war in Iraq.
As democracy purportedly comes to the Palestinian Authority, the Bush administration has been in a quandary over what to do if Hamas, one of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, comes to power democratically.
A victim of his own propaganda, which justifies the Iraq war as a means to spread democracy to the Moslem Middle East in the absence of finding WMD, Bush’s policy on Hamas participation in the PA election has, so far, been a variation of “bring ‘em on”.
Ironically, in order to provide some consistency to his war policy, Bush has acquiesced to having a terror organization run for office in the PA, without ever demanding that the organization renounce terror or lay down its arms.
Quoting from economist Milton Friedman’s book, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, insisting that Bush has not changed his policy on Hamas, said it’s all about freedom to choose. “We have great confidence in democracy and elections,” he said. "When people are given the chance to express themselves they tend to choose those who seek peace and those who seek to improve their quality of life, not terrorists."
Another administration official echoed that view. "We're not acquiescing. We do not deal with ... terrorists." But he added: "How do you pursue this without limiting democratic choices?"
Other administration officials are dressing the administration’s apparent shift of policy in pragmatic terms. With tens of millions of dollars of U.S. aid about to start pouring into projects in PA municipalities already controlled by democratically-elected Hamas officials, some say they have no choice but to deal with Hamas representatives.
"It's a very complicated problem. What do you do about these groups when they are both terrorist groups and entering into politics?" a senior administration official said.
Up until now, the U.S. administration has been adamantly opposed to dealing with groups that do not forswear using terror as a means of attaining political objectives. For example, in contrast to the European view, the U.S. has refused to recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate political force in Lebanon, despite the fact that is has a very popular political wing that plays a role in Lebanese electoral politics.
Not all administration officials agree with the White House’s softened attitude toward Hamas as a political force in the PA. A report in Tuesday’s New York Times suggested that the administration will refuse all contact with Hamas even if it wins in the upcoming PA elections.
"The president has said that Hamas is on the terrorism list, and it's there for a reason," said an anonymous administration official. "We don't recognize that you have changed your behavior just because a group is running candidates as well as suicide bombers."
That particular official may be worried about what effect a “bring -‘em – on, free to chose” precedent may have on elections in Iraq, once U.S. forces withdraw. Saddam’s Ba’ath party or even Shiite terror groups could run a campaign based on how many U.S. troops they succeeded in killing before the U.S. pulled out.
The direction U.S. policy ultimately takes may have a lot to do with how strongly Israel maintains its opposition to dealing with Hamas. Unfortunately, the Civil Administration, perhaps without considering the wider ramifications of its move, has already begun dealing with Hamas municipal officials as a means of easing conditions in PA administered areas.
If Israel is interested in strengthening administration officials opposed to softening the U.S. approach to Hamas, the Defense Ministry (which oversees the Civil Administration) should make sure Israeli officials stay out of harm’s way regarding any dealings with Hamas representatives.
The rising popularity of Hamas in PA-administered areas in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza has prompted PA chief Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party to postpone those elections, originally scheduled for July 17. Abbas believes that the planned Israeli expulsion of its residents from Gaza and northern Samaria will boost his ratings before the electoral bout.
The Hamas leadership has strongly objected to postponing the elections, which are being showcased by the United States as another victory for democracy, a dividend of seemingly endless war in Iraq.
As democracy purportedly comes to the Palestinian Authority, the Bush administration has been in a quandary over what to do if Hamas, one of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, comes to power democratically.
A victim of his own propaganda, which justifies the Iraq war as a means to spread democracy to the Moslem Middle East in the absence of finding WMD, Bush’s policy on Hamas participation in the PA election has, so far, been a variation of “bring ‘em on”.
Ironically, in order to provide some consistency to his war policy, Bush has acquiesced to having a terror organization run for office in the PA, without ever demanding that the organization renounce terror or lay down its arms.
Quoting from economist Milton Friedman’s book, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, insisting that Bush has not changed his policy on Hamas, said it’s all about freedom to choose. “We have great confidence in democracy and elections,” he said. "When people are given the chance to express themselves they tend to choose those who seek peace and those who seek to improve their quality of life, not terrorists."
Another administration official echoed that view. "We're not acquiescing. We do not deal with ... terrorists." But he added: "How do you pursue this without limiting democratic choices?"
Other administration officials are dressing the administration’s apparent shift of policy in pragmatic terms. With tens of millions of dollars of U.S. aid about to start pouring into projects in PA municipalities already controlled by democratically-elected Hamas officials, some say they have no choice but to deal with Hamas representatives.
"It's a very complicated problem. What do you do about these groups when they are both terrorist groups and entering into politics?" a senior administration official said.
Up until now, the U.S. administration has been adamantly opposed to dealing with groups that do not forswear using terror as a means of attaining political objectives. For example, in contrast to the European view, the U.S. has refused to recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate political force in Lebanon, despite the fact that is has a very popular political wing that plays a role in Lebanese electoral politics.
Not all administration officials agree with the White House’s softened attitude toward Hamas as a political force in the PA. A report in Tuesday’s New York Times suggested that the administration will refuse all contact with Hamas even if it wins in the upcoming PA elections.
"The president has said that Hamas is on the terrorism list, and it's there for a reason," said an anonymous administration official. "We don't recognize that you have changed your behavior just because a group is running candidates as well as suicide bombers."
That particular official may be worried about what effect a “bring -‘em – on, free to chose” precedent may have on elections in Iraq, once U.S. forces withdraw. Saddam’s Ba’ath party or even Shiite terror groups could run a campaign based on how many U.S. troops they succeeded in killing before the U.S. pulled out.
The direction U.S. policy ultimately takes may have a lot to do with how strongly Israel maintains its opposition to dealing with Hamas. Unfortunately, the Civil Administration, perhaps without considering the wider ramifications of its move, has already begun dealing with Hamas municipal officials as a means of easing conditions in PA administered areas.
If Israel is interested in strengthening administration officials opposed to softening the U.S. approach to Hamas, the Defense Ministry (which oversees the Civil Administration) should make sure Israeli officials stay out of harm’s way regarding any dealings with Hamas representatives.