TJP

Hamas’ Reaction was Predictable

Byron A. Ellis

In January of 2006, Hamas won a large majority in the Palestinian parliament, 76 of the 132 seats. The Washington Post noted that they trounced the governing Fatah party, who only won 43 seats.

The Hamas victory came in spite of the Bush administration spending about $2 million in foreign aid money to increase the popularity of the Palestinian Authority prior to the election.

Hamas, as opposed to Fatah, demonstrated competency and efficiency in delivering social services to the Palestinian people. And, it is this propensity to satisfy the needs of its constituency that allowed Hamas to win the elections.

The Washington Post noted that Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, said that the Palestinian people voted democratically and peacefully.

Furthermore, Western observers deemed the Palestinian elections free and fair. However, the Washington Post noted that the election results stunned the U.S. and Israeli officials, who stated that they would not work with a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas.

Apparently, the democratic choices of the Palestinian people did not satisfy some Western governments. As a result, they set up financial restrictions, withheld humanitarian funding and Palestinian tax revenues in an effort to overturn the election results. Additionally, they began providing military training and support to Fatah.

In essence, in appeared that the West was attempting to neutralize Hamas’ electoral victory by punishing the Palestinians for their voting choices and ostracizing Hamas. Their policy signaled to the region, and the world, that Western clamor for democracy in the Middle East was hollow, because they failed to respect the choices of the Palestinian people.

A little Western foresight would have revealed that such policy lack procedural and interactional justice. Therefore, it would increase animosity and mistrust. Procedural justice is the fairness of decision-making processes. Interactional justice is about justification, truthfulness, respect, and propriety; it deals with the perception of fairness on the interpersonal and informational levels. And, that is why good and clear communication is a critical success factor in the achievement of objectives.

Failure to communicate with adversaries does not incapacitate them; rather it leads to greater polarization and misunderstandings. Therefore, if stability is to be approached in the Middle East, equitable communication and give and take must be reestablished with those deemed adversaries.