Placing the right demands
Having finally managed to create a coalition government with Fatah, Hamas is still not able to end the boycott. By recognizing and swearing to respect previous agreements the Fatah-governed PA (Palestinian Authority) has consented to, Hamas is implicitly recognizing Israel. This is not good enough for Mr. Bush and Mrs. Rice. They are demanding that Hamas explicitly recognize Israel and formally swears off violence. While (at least some) European politicians seem to realize that this is as good as it gets, the US wants a total renunciation of the Hamas platform. Besides its social networks and charity programs, Hamas' support draws in large part from its continuous effort to liberate Palestine. In reality, it's not the whole of Palestine Hamas wants, but Palestine with the 1948 boarders. At least that's what they say, but there are factors that point to their willingness to accept the 1967 boarders. If Western politicians had paid more attention, they would have known that Hamas has shown an increasing sense of pragmatism in terms of accepting the existence of Israel. Like one Hamas official phrased it: "It is not the existence of Israel that is the problem, but the fact that Palestine does not exist".
Ideological parties like Hamas rely heavily on anti-Israel rhetoric. When negotiating with such actors, one should place demands that are not impossible to comply with. By demanding that Hamas, with martyrs-band in hand and bowed heads, renounce what they see as legitimate resistance to occupation, one is simultaneously demanding that they give up their ideological credibility. The result might be an array of out-of-control splinter groups who answer to no one, and who have no incentives to listen to outside opinions. This is the beauty of political participation: when actors like the PLO and Hamas start running for elections and gathering votes, they become more vulnerable and sensitive to the opinions of the general population. Instead of ideological inflexibility, vote-gatherers are forced to compromise and make concessions in order to stay in the game. One can imagine that disillusioned splinter-groups like, say, ´The Real Hamas´, will be sponsored with money from Iran or some "pocket-jihadi" Saudi prince, and as such be more or less independent of the Palestinian society. Having no need for Palestinian votes or money, they would operate regardless of regular people's wishes, battling for "the higher cause" of annihilating the Zionist occupier. Such isolation often translates into hardcore fanaticm and general lack of critical sense. Israel would most probably demand that Hamas reign in these groups before any negotiations could take place, but Hamas would no longer have the power to do so. Gaza might be governed by an even greater degree of lawlessness than now, and be a great place for terrorist-recruitment. In short, it would be al Qaeda's wet dream.
With regard to al Qaeda, Western policy makers should have noticed the war of words between Hamas and al Qaeda. Hamas was accused of compromising its Islamist identity by participating in "infidel" democratic politics. Muslims cannot win playing "their" (Westerners') game. When the boycott was implemented, al Qaeda said: "told you so". Funny how things play right into bin Laden's hands.
If the goal is a de-militarized and moderate Hamas, one should let them off with this implicit recognition of Israel. They have made a concession that lets them keep their face. Forcing them to lose credibility is in no-one's interest, least of all Israel's. Pressing for a formal recognition will either lead to that, or more likely a total rejection from Hamas' side, consequently bringing them closer to Iran. Hamas will not lay down their guns without any major concessions on Israel's side. It is a demand Hamas cannot accept. A cease-fire would be more realistic, and more likely to succeed. But it seems like neither Bush nor Israel is that concerned with success. They are perhaps more than happy to continue the boycott.
