In what has been called a "completely honest, completely fair, and completely safe" election, the Palestinian people have just elected a government that is completely bent on the destruction of Israel, completely determined to establish an Islamic theocracy, and completely predisposed to terrorism. On January 25, Hamas, the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, won 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament, ousting the ruling Fatah party from power for the first time since the Palestinian authority was established in 1993. Electing a terrorist government to rule their newly formed Democracy may seem to be a failure of the democratic experiment in the Arab world, but is this Hamas victory really that alarming?

On the face of it, yes it is.

Muhammed Zaha, the leader of Hamas in Gaza said: "Now, after the victory in the Gaza strip, we will transfer the struggle first to the West Bank and later to Jerusalem.. Neither the liberation of the Gaza Strip nor the liberation of the West Bank or even Jerusalem will suffice us. Hamas will pursue the armed struggle until the liberation of all our lands. We don't recognize the state of Israel or its right to hold onto one inch of Palestine. Palestine is an Islamic land belonging to all the Muslims."

Clearly his comments don't bode well for negotiating "Peace" with neighbor Israel. How does one negotiate when one party calls for the extinction of the other?

Unfortunately, that is precisely what Israel and the Western world has been doing ever since Oslo. Arafat's Fatah party considered one of its core doctrines the "phase plan" of 1974 in which it calls for the destruction of Israel in 3 stages: 1. Establishing an "independent authority" over any territory "liberated" from Israeli rule. 2. Continued struggle using the national authority as a base of operations. 3. Provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy it entirely.

The West believed Arafat when he said (in English) that he had changed, however, Arafat reiterated this position in 1993, just after signing the agreement: "[Oslo] will be a basis for an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Palestine National Council resolution issued in 1974." Arafat's Fatah spoke about "Peace" in English to the West, but about Jihad and victory in Arabic to their own people.

Hamas chooses not to engage in the same doublespeak that characterized Arafat and Fatah. Khaled Mash'al, Hamas' leader in Damascus said, just after the elections, that "as for recognizing [Israel] and amending our charter - Hamas is not the kind of movement that succumbs to pressure. The occupation has no legitimacy. We will not recognize it, no matter how much time passes. We will never recognize the occupation as legitimate, and we will not give up on our rights. However, we are realistic, and we know things are done gradually, in stages." By "occupation" he is, of course, referring to the entirety of Israel, not the West Bank or Gaza.

Ironically, in Hamas' stark statements of its beliefs, an opportunity for something positive can be found from the Palestinian elections. Now that Fatah's doublespeak has been rejected in favor of Hamas' brand of jihadi candor, perhaps the West might open its eyes to the real nature of the Islamist threat.

Following the elections, former US president Jimmy Carter exclaimed that "My hope is that as Hamas assumes a major role in the next government, whatever that might be, it will take a position on international standards of responsibility." Secretary General Kofi Annan later noted what those "international standards of responsibility" are: "a Hamas-led Palestinian government must commit to non-violence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of existing peace agreements if it is to maintain its level of financial support." Of course, Hamas leadership immediately scrambled to do precisely the opposite: "The Palestinian people has [sic] chosen Hamas with its known stances. If America wants to negotiate with Hamas - it is most welcome, but based on the positions for which the people chose us."

Hamas' victory now presents the West with a choice between Scylla & Charybdis. We can recognize that Hamas has no intention whatsoever of "moderating" or "civilizing" and isolate them as part of the ongoing "war on terror," or we can choose to coddle our own delusions of optimism and believe that Hamas will "reform."

Khaled Mash'al has offered a "hudna" to Israel, which has been extensively covered in Western newspapers as an offer of "cease-fire," so long as Israel accepts a whole host of terms from Hamas. This has been viewed as early evidence of a possible Hamas "softening." Islamic theology, however, offers a very different take: "Hudna" is a period of quiet in which time is sought for rearmament and gaining of strength until ultimate victory can be achieved. Masha'l later emphasized the same point, saying "There is a difference between regarding the period of calm (hudna) as divergence from the resistance - which will never happen - and regarding the period of calm as one of the tactics of the resistance."

So if Hamas rejects the very terms of Oslo by failing to renounce terror, calling for the creation of a Palestinian army in direct contravention of the treaty,* and embraces terrorism as a tool for nationalist goals, why is the West treating the Oslo accords as sacrosanct? Worse, why is the West considering the funding of Hamas?

Without Oslo there is no Palestinian Authority. In fact, without Oslo there is no legal framework at all for any "Palestinian Territories." There were no Palestinian territories prior to 1967; Gaza was ruled by Egypt and the West bank by Jordan. Hamas certainly rejects Oslo:

According, once again, to Masha'l: "The Legislative Council is one of the Oslo Accords' political frameworks, but the Oslo plan is over. It is no longer effective, and no one follows it anymore, and I don't think our people will accept the revival of Oslo, after it has been buried and eulogized by all."

Perhaps it is time for Israel and the West to declare the Oslo accords a mistake, renounce the Palestinian authority entirely and try another tack? Classical Odysseus, when forced to choose, ended up choosing Scylla over Charybdis and lost a large portion of his crew. He saw this as better than facing Charybdis and potentially losing his ship and all aboard.

Will a Hamas led PA be the modern day Scylla, whom dealing with may ultimately provide the way forward despite the inevitable loss of life, or will they prove Charybdis and cause any hope of Peace to go down with the ship?

---------------------------

* According to the Oslo 2 treaty (1995), the PA is allowed to deploy up to 24,000 policemen. Furthermore, Oslo 2 states "Except for the Palestinian Police and the Israeli military forces, no other armed forces shall be established or operate in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." The treaty then goes on to prohibit all weapons, explosives, etc. by anyone other than the PA Police or Israeli military.