A historical verge, or back to Algeria in 1992?

The Daily Star Middle East | Rami G. Khouri

Beirut

We are in 1992 once again. Will the victorious Islamist political movement Hamas be allowed to govern in Palestine, as the triumphant Islamic Salvation Front was not allowed to do after it won the first round of Algerian elections in 1992? The denial of incumbency to the Algerian Islamists resulted in a bitter and bloody civil war that cost thousands of lives over a decade. It set back the democratization trend in the Middle East by at least a decade, at a crucial moment after the Cold War when democracy was spreading throughout the world.

Decisions made today may be equally fateful. How the United States, Europe and Israel respond to Hamas' assuming control of the government in Palestine may well define political trends and militant violence throughout much of the Middle East for years to come. This is because several historical factors have converged to make the success or failure of a Hamas-led Palestinian government a litmus test for broad perceptions and relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

At stake here are several major issues: the future direction of the democratic wave that is slowly moving throughout the Middle East; the fate of America's credibility with the Arab-Islamic world on promoting freedom and democracy; the possibility of achieving a negotiated Arab-Israeli peace in the coming years; the balance between, on the one hand, the majority of mainstream political Islamists such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and, on the other hand, radical terrorists like Osama bin Laden; the legitimacy and staying power of most so-called "moderate" Arab regimes that are close to the U.S.; and the situation Washington faces in Iraq and in its so-called "global war on terror."

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration's response to Hamas was a main theme at the annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, organized by the Brookings Institution and the Qatari government. The prevalent sentiment among Arabs and Muslims from other parts of the world was that Hamas should be given an opportunity to form a government and declare its policy program before it is sanctioned through aid cut-offs or other such punitive measures, as Israel has already imposed. American participants generally seemed less convinced, wanting specific assurances that Hamas would end its military resistance against Israel and recognize its existence.

My own sense is that the Hamas victory provides a rare historical opportunity to achieve goals that all the main parties should welcome - Israelis, Palestinians, Americans and Europeans. The best possible scenario would be for the U.S. to repeat its existing opposition to Hamas' military resistance and terror against Israeli civilians, but state that it will continue to deal with a legitimately elected Palestinian government that adheres to existing agreements and aims to achieve a negotiated peace settlement based on Israeli and Palestinian states living peacefully side-by-side. The Hamas-led Palestinian government, after consultations with Arab states, should declare its acceptance of the 2002 Arab peace proposal endorsed in Beirut, which offers coexistence with Israel in its 1967 borders and requires a fair resolution of the Palestine refugee problem. The Arab plan is almost identical to Hamas' position on Israel, so it should not be difficult to accept it.

The U.S. can achieve several goals by responding slowly, clearly and positively to Hamas and engaging it in a diplomatic dialogue. It would cement the cease-fire in Israel and Palestine and nudge Palestinians and Israelis toward the negotiating table; enhance Arab confidence on democracy; make it easier for all Arabs to cooperate with the U.S. in other fields, including Iraq; create conditions in which Islamists who govern are forced by circumstances to be increasingly moderate, pragmatic and realistic; and mobilize the silent majority in the Arab world to delegitimize and perhaps end the terrorism of Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

Israel and its slightly hysterical polemicists and lobbyists in Washington are in overdrive these days. They wish to prevent any possible thoughtful American response that gives Hamas time to show whether it is willing to move toward a position that accepts Israel's existence, in return for legitimate Palestinian demands for an end to the occupation, the birth of a Palestinian state and a fair resolution of the refugee issue.

If the U.S. follows Israel by isolating and sanctioning Hamas and punishing the Palestinians for electing it, the potential consequences are grim: the government in Palestine could collapse and chaos might reign again; most Arabs (and people throughout the entire world) would deem the U.S. totally unreliable and non-credible in its talk of promoting democracy; radical terrorists linked to Al-Qaeda would win more converts from frustrated Islamists who would feel that they followed the more moderate Hamas line to no avail; anti-American sentiment and militancy would rise throughout the region; the exposed U.S. position in Iraq would become increasingly difficult and dangerous; anti-American populism championed by Syria and Iran would expand rapidly, and find grim new forms of expression; and, Arab regimes friendly to the U.S. would become more exposed and vulnerable to their own peoples' anger.

The choice is laden with momentous consequences. Washington should recognize the historic opportunity that stares it in the face, and for once adopt a Middle Eastern policy that is a win-win situation for all concerned.