KEY POINTS:
People unfamiliar with the West Bank and Gaza Strip may wonder why the Palestinian people voted last year for a militant Islamic faction, Hamas, to lead their government.
Some interpret this as a clear indication that Palestinians do not want to live in peace with their Israeli neighbours. Others may see the election of Hamas as proof that Palestinians prefer a government that is run by Sharia - strict Islamic law.
However, in a poll in April last year, 75 per cent said they wanted their new government to conduct peace talks with Israel.
Another poll found, similarly, that 84 per cent of those surveyed wanted a peace agreement with Israel, and 86 per cent wanted the moderate Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, to remain in his post.
In other polls, Palestinians expressed clearly that voting for Hamas did not reflect a desire to turn Palestine into a strict Islamic state.
Mark Perry, a Middle East conflict resolution expert, says of Hamas' victory: "There's a lot of disinformation circulating. We heard that Hamas would impose Islamic rule, but so far that hasn't happened. We heard that Hamas would write Islamic rule into the law of Gaza, and I don't think that will happen either. I don't think there are broad social consequences from Hamas' victory."
Nine of the 15 members of Hamas' Shura Council have doctorate degrees in the sciences. They are not rejectionists of the enlightenment. There are hardliners within Hamas who would push for an Islamic state, but they are relatively few and street captains - not in the leadership. Hamas has been strong in Gaza, but there's no Islamic state there - no enforced social programmes, no religious police, and a relatively free press.
"Is Gaza more conservative than the West Bank?" asks Perry. "Yes, but that's part of a process that's been going on for the past 40 years. It's not because of the recent fighting. You just don't see support for an Islamic state on the ground. This is not Tehran in 1979."
I think Palestinians voted for Hamas for the following reasons:
* To protest against the corruption of many of their leaders of the ruling Fatah Party. Fatah chief and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has not been able to clean up the reputation of his government in the short period since he took over after the death of Yasser Arafat. Palestinians concluded that the only way to clean up their government was to vote into power the only alternative party that could challenge Fatah, Hamas.
* Voters also wanted to protest against Israel's humiliation of the moderate Palestinians. For years the Palestinian National Authority had extended a hand of reconciliation to the Israeli leadership. However, the Israelis consistently not only shunned Palestinian calls for a just peace but continued taking actions that angered Palestinians and brought scorn on the Fatah government.
The Israelis had their agenda (building settlements in the West Bank) fixed and they decided that they did not need the moderate Palestinian leadership obstructing it.
* Voters were also protesting against American policy in Israel/Palestine. The failure of the international community, headed by the US, to create a political horizon for Palestinians created a vacuum that was filled by militant Islamist factions. This scenario has been repeated in other Middle Eastern countries.
Meanwhile, the US gave lip service to Palestinian moderates, which made those moderates look like they were supporting the status quo and collaborating with its guardians. On election day, the Palestinians decided to send a message to the Americans.
* Hamas had been engaged in humanitarian work throughout the Gaza Strip and some parts of the West Bank, providing food for the hungry and other services for the poverty-stricken people. Palestinians decided to vote for the hand that fed them, instead of voting for the hand accused of siphoning off their national treasury.
After Hamas was elected, the US made another grave mistake. It refused to talk to, or financially support, the new government.
The US sent a message to the world that democracy is permitted only when the elected party adopts an agenda that does not conflict with its interests and Israel's. The US and Israel decided to bankrupt Hamas to bring the government to its knees. Israel also began rounding up and incarcerating the democratically elected Hamas officials.
The irony about all this is that the US had pressured Israel to allow Hamas to participate in the elections.
With the US supporting Fatah, and grassroots and international Islamic movements around the world financing Hamas, the stage was set for a Palestinian civil war.
Once again, Palestine became a battlefield for international antagonists as each side began arming its clients to assure a victory. Fortunately for most civilians, a fully-fledged civil war did not break out. But the few battles that did take place in Gaza resulted in the loss of over 50 Palestinian lives, both fighters and civilians. In the end, Hamas claimed victory by taking control of the Gaza Strip, while Fatah retreated to the West Bank.
Hamas will not be able to bankroll Gaza on its own for very long and Islamists will not be able to continue pouring in millions of dollars to sustain an entity they know will gradually be cut off from the international community.
The best solution for Hamas' leaders is to reconcile with the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, and call for new elections. They must realise that neither the international community nor the Palestinians themselves are ready to accept a Hamas-led government in Palestine.
* The Rev Alex Awad, who is visiting NZ, is dean of students at Bethlehem Bible College and pastor of East Jerusalem Baptist Church. He has written two books on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
