Hamas on the Clock

The recent Palestinian elections presented voters with an extremely difficult choice. By many accounts, the widespread corruption and inefficiency of Fatah had the Palestinian people clamoring for competent government. Fatah’s primary opposition, Hamas, had demonstrated its effectiveness with internal social programs, but this domestic competency was accompanied by a disturbingly extremist attitude toward Israel. Faced with this choice, Palestinian voters opted for Hamas. Although it is doubtful that all voters support Hamas’ terrorism—rather, many were probably looking for an alternative to the stagnation and alleged corruption of Fatah—the so-called “Quartet” of the U.S., U.N., E.U., and Russia should make its future financial support of the Palestinian authority contingent on the government’s ability to distance itself from Hamas’ terrorist roots.

The Quartet currently provides crucial support to the Palestinian government through substantial direct foreign aid, including over $800 million each year from the U.S. and Europe, much of which is devoted to paying the salaries of the 137,000 employees of the Palestinian Authority. If the Quartet is to continue to provide aid, it must do so only under the condition that Hamas make serious changes to its charter and its actions.

First, Hamas must reject terrorism as a tool to achieve its goals. Hamas has a well-documented history of supporting and engaging in terrorism, with its military wing assuming responsibility for numerous terrorist operations, including suicide bombs in Israel. Its disturbing record of violence has caused the U.S. and E.U. to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. Second, Hamas must recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist. While we understand that this recognition would be directly opposed to one of Hamas’ fundamental goals and would thus be a difficult step to enact, it is nonetheless a necessary measure if Hamas hopes to establish itself as a political entity eligible for the aid contributions it currently receives.

This rejection of terrorism will necessarily require that Hamas modify its charter, which explicitly rejects peaceful solutions and calls for Israel’s destruction. These changes cannot be only in word but must also be in deed: Hamas must take actions that make it clear that it is committed to working towards peace in the Middle East, such as demonstrating a willingness to engage in negotiations towards coexistence. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently said, “Germany expects all political forces that carry responsibility to accept the preconditions for political activity. That means for me, firstly, that Israel’s right to existence is recognized, and secondly, there is no use of violence.” Should Hamas fail to make these reforms after a short grace period, the Quartet should cease contributing aid to the Palestinian Authority.

This is not to say that we don’t recognize the harm to the Palestinian people that the withdrawal of aid may cause. The Palestinian Authority announced yesterday that it is delaying paying its employees for two weeks as it searches for new sources of funding, and we are certainly not celebrating the hardship that many Palestinian families will face. We acknowledge the difficult choice that Palestinians faced at the polls, but we cannot accept, on a categorical basis, that our own tax dollars be given to any authority that promotes terrorism.

Hamas’ democratic ascent to the helm of the Palestinian Authority highlights an underlying tension in U.S. policy of promoting democracy abroad. It is important to recognize, however, that supporting the democratic process does not necessarily entail supporting its outcomes. One can uphold the right of the Palestinian people to elect their government while disapproving of the unsettling result: the election of a terrorist group that both supports the destruction of Israel and the use of violence to achieve this end—two positions that are in clear opposition to the goal of peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.