Hamas is an organization that was created in 1987 as part of the Palestinian Islamist Movement. Hamas runs itself on a charter that among other things contains language condemning Israel as Zionists that need to be obliterated. Hamas was originally formed as a knee-jerk reaction to the creation of Israel and as a guard for the Palestinian movement. The beginnings of a terrorist organization was forced upon Hamas because of the unique situation they found themselves in. The entire free world was supporting a free Israel and Palestinians were forced to respond with the only means a weaker people can employ in the face of enormous power; terrorism. Recently, Hamas won a majority, seventy-four out of one hundred and thirty-two seats, in the Palestinian Legislative elections in January (Hamas). The United States should and must recognize Hamas as a legitimate representation of the Palestinian people.

            Since then, Hamas has recognized that a diplomatic approach to their situation with Israel and the international community is more efficient, because the world’s attention is now on them. The charter for Hamas does call for an immediate annihilation of the Jewish state, but a Hamas leader in 2005 articulated that if Israel respected the 1967 borders and accepted the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland while withdrawing from Palestinian-established territories, it would stop armed struggle against Israel (Hamas). The party is shifting further and further towards a coexistence with Israel, more than ever before.

            Their platform for the recent 2006 election for Parliament was one of anti-corruption. They have also won over the Palestinian people by setting up an extensive network of welfare programs that has benefited its people. Hamas was chosen by the Palestinian people primarily due to their stance against bureaucracy and slow action. They appealed to the Palestinian people by articulating how a government led by Hamas will serve the Palestinians in the truest way possible without any underhanded corruption. Even if the United States on-face didn’t want to accept the result of the election, the fact that Hamas campaigned on a legitimate platform should show the United States that it must accept the results (Hamas). In the past we have seen terrorist freedom fighters renounce their violence ways to adopt diplomatic approaches to problems. Yasser Arafat used to employ terror tactics within the Fatah Party to get what he wanted for his people, yet he renounced his actions later and won the Nobel Peace Prize (Yasser Arafat). Change is possible.

            Hamas has become politically sound and has won over the hearts of Palestinians with a platform that does not advocate the use of violence, even if their antiquated charter might articulate a radically outdated position of the party. The United States should be able to realize that extermination of all Zionists is not part of the platform now. The history of Hamas cannot and should not overshadow the chance for a future with peace and change. The United States not recognizing a re-generated Hamas might force it to resort to old violent terror tactics. While Hamas will always somewhat condone acts like suicide bombings, they have stopped committing these acts on their own. The only option for the United States is to forgive Hamas for its past and give it the benefit of the doubt for the future (Collins).

            By giving Hamas a legitimate chance at running the Palestinian government, the United States can breed a sense of responsibility within the ranks of Hamas Party.  Hamas will almost feel obligated to follow through on non-violent promises once it is legitimized on an international scale. Not only will the United States breed a sense of responsibility within the party but the United States will also be constructing a channel for future peace in the region (Plitnick). Historically, diplomatic engagement of a disagreeing entity has been proven to be better than outright refusal to recognize it. In Northern Ireland in the 1990’s, the United States engaged Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, in order to bring about a peaceful resolution (Plitnick). This decision by the United States proved to be the correct one and worked out better than stubborn ignorance would have.

            Out of all the factions and parties in Palestine, Hamas is the most radical majority the world has seen in a long time, and is the most prominent party ever that has maintained its level of opposition to Israel. Hamas will be unfairly blamed for every suicide bombing and attack within Israel because now it is in the eyes of the entire world. Israel and the rest of the world must realize that there are many other factions and organizations in Palestine that are simply terrorist regimes and rogue groups that actually carry out these attacks on Israel. The situation is similar to Israel’s freedom fighters that commit violent acts in Palestine as part of “radical” or extreme groups.

            The United States cannot refuse to acknowledge the results of a legitimate democratic election simply because they disagree with the result. The Palestinian people have spoken in their election and have chosen Hamas as the political representation of themselves. If the United States does not recognize Hamas, they are directly neglecting the wishes of the Palestinian people and are rejecting the purest principles of democracy. Respecting the will of the Palestinian people is a hard form of action for the United States, but with perspective, the United States will know it is the right decision. The Quartet is an organization of four countries pushing for a Mideast peace plan that includes Hamas forming a government that recognizes Israel’s right to exist. The members include the United States, Russia, the UN, and the European Union. When we look at the two possible worlds in which the Quartet can force Hamas to take action, one in which Hamas is negotiating with the United States, and one in which it is not, we can see that it would be infinitely harder to force Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist if the United States does not recognize Hamas (Recognize Hamas as legit, Putin says). The moderate centrists of Hamas are willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist if Israel renounces annexing part of the Palestinian West Beach (Franceschi). Both Isreal and Palestine are ready to accept each other, no matter how bitter their situation might be. Although Israel might condemn negotiating with Hamas as the beginning of a slippery slope to Israel’s mistreatment, the United States will never sacrifice its support for the Israeli people and their right to exist independent of an Arab state. Negotiating might seem like appeasement to the antagonists of a free Israel, but in reality it will never actually be that.

            The fact that Hamas has refused to allow the PLO to represent itself (Arnon) should indicate to the United States that there is no alternative to recognizing Hamas. The United States will lose immense political capital throughout the Middle East if it simply refuses to recognize Hamas because they disagree with part of its platform. The cries of the Arab people that the United States is nothing but an imperialistic dictatorship will be strengthened when the United States portrays itself as hypocritical; fighting for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and refusing to recognize democracy’s existence in Palestine(Jimmy Carter: Give Hamas a Chance). Recognizing Hamas will set a precedent for the United States in all its dealings with the Middle East. The United States will gain an immense amount of credibility by recognizing democracy, and by lowering its perceived ego to negotiate with the people that it claims to be in a quasi-war with. Rogue nations like Iran will be more likely to negotiate with the United States if they felt like they actually had a change of getting somewhere (Plitnick). Hatred towards America in the Muslim Middle East will only intensify if the United States portrays itself as too egoistic to talk with one entity of the many they have labeled as terrorists.

            There is no harm in giving Hamas a chance to prove itself as a non-violent, non-terrorist governmental representation of the Palestinian people. The United States hasn’t trusted Hamas in the past because it has never been a fully legitimate representation of the Palestinians. But now the United States has to trust the people that would know Hamas best, the Palestinian people. They have rendered a verdict on Hamas that the United States should be able to live with. The United States can reasonably assume most Palestinians don’t want violence and terror in their lives, so at the point where they accept Hamas, the United States should be able to as well. If Hamas fails to live up to its promises to its people and to the international world it is looking to for legitimacy, the United States can always reject its recognition and adopt its old stance of Hamas’ complete acceptance of Israel and it’s right to exist before Hamas is legitimized.

            Hamas is moving towards a coexistence with Israel that is unprecedented. While other parties in Palestine like the Fatah are more in tune with what America and the international community wants now, the fact still remains that the Palestinian people chose Hamas to represent them as the majority. The United States not recognizing Hamas ruins any chance for peace, while recognition leaves some room for a gain in peace (Plitnick). The moderate core of Hamas is willing to negotiate reasonably away from extremes like complete destruction of Israel’s existence. Recognition will open a never-before-used tunnel for peace that could lead to a solution to the seemingly perpetual conflict between Israel and Palestine.

 

 

Works Cited

Collins, Ali. “Should the US recognize Hamas? Yes.” The State. 13 Feb. 2006. 25 Mar. 2006. <http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/13858420.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp>.

 

Franceschi, Jela De. “Solving the Hamas Predicament.” Voice of America. 22 Mar. 2006. VoA News Now. 24 Mar. 2006. <http://www.voanews.com/english/NewsAnalysis/Hamas2006-03-22-voa48.cfm>.

 

Free Press News Services. “Recognize Hamas as legit, Putin says.” Nation/World Free Press. 10 Feb. 2006. Detroit Free Press. 24 Mar. 2006. <http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWS07/602100364/1009>.

 

Plitnick, Mitchell. “US Refusal to recognize Hamas will hurt peace.” The Progressive Media Project. 26 Jan. 2006. The Progressive. 24 Mar. 2006. <http://www.progressive.org/media_mpplitnick012606>.

 

Regular, Arnon. “Haniyeh calls snap parliamentary vote on new Hamas cabinet.” 22 Mar. 2006. Haaretz. 24 Mar. 2006. <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/697391.html>.

 

“Hamas.” Wikipedia. 29 Mar. 2006. Wikipedia. 26 Mar. 2006. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas>.

 

“Jimmy Carter: Give Hamas a Chance.” CNN.COM. 2 Feb. 2006. Cable News Network. 24 Mar. 2006. <http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/>.

 

“Yasser Arafat.” Wikipedia. 29 Mar. 2006. Wikipedia. 27 Mar. 2006.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat>.