Fatah and Hamas
Fatah and Hamas
Fatah and Hamas
March 3, 2006
Summary
For the first time in its history, the Palestinian parliament is set to be led by Hamas,
which the United States and European Union have designated a foreign terrorist
organization. Although some lauded the generally free and fair election in January 2006,
others criticized the outcome and accused Hamas of “hijacking” democracy. This report
provides an overview of the new political realities in the West Bank and Gaza after the
election, the challenges Fatah and Hamas face, and possible implications for U.S. policy.
This report will be updated as warranted. For more information on the Palestinians, see
CRS Report RL33269, Palestinian Elections, by Aaron D. Pina, CRS Issue Brief
IB91137 The Middle East Peace Talks, by Carol Migdalovitz, and CRS Report
RS22370, U.S. Assistance to the Palestinians, by Jeremy M. Sharp.
Background
On January 25, 2006, Palestinians voted in parliamentary elections and Hamas
emerged as the clear winner, with 74 out of 132 parliamentary seats. Fatah, the dominant
party in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), won 45 seats, and 13 seats went to
other minor parties. Since then, several governments, including the United States, have
cautioned that unless Hamas disavows terrorism, recognizes Israel, and accepts all
previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, diplomatic and economic relations with the
Palestinian Authority may be circumscribed or ended altogether.
Hamas1
During the 1970s and 1980s, Palestinians experienced a rise in political Islam,
embodied in Hamas, founded in 1987 by the late Sheik Ahmad Yasin. Hamas couches
the Palestinian national struggle in religious terms and is a Palestinian offshoot of the
1
Hamas is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (the Islamic Resistance
Movement). Hamas also means “zeal” in Arabic.
! Khaled Mishal: Mishal was born in the West Bank in 1956 and studied
physics at Kuwait University, where he led the Islamic Palestinian
student movement. Mishal is considered the leader of Hamas and resides
in Damascus, Syria, where he has lived in exile since the early 1990s.
! Sheik Hassan Yousef: Yousef, in his fifties, has been the head of
Hamas in the West Bank since 2001, and is currently in an Israeli prison.
Considered by many experts to be pragmatic, Yousef’s participation in
parliament, should he be released, may promote moderation within
Hamas.
! Mohamed Deif: Deif, 40 years old, is from Gaza. Since 2002, he has
been the Gaza commander of the military wing of Hamas. According to
some, Deif’s mentor was Yahya Ayyash, a renowned Hamas bomb maker
and head of the Qassam brigades until his assassination in late 1995.
Deif’s exact whereabouts are unknown.
Hamas’ Challenges. Hamas has never entered the political realm, and in the view
of many, may have to be more accommodating politically if it wants to retain governing
authority.
Forming the Next Government. The new Palestinian parliament was sworn in
on February 18, and Hamas is expected to form a government within five weeks. Some
within Hamas appear to support forming a government of non-political technocrats, which
might forestall recognizing Israel or losing much needed foreign aid. Israeli leaders,
however, have said a government influenced by Hamas or containing Hamas
representatives would be unacceptable, and the United States along with others in the
international community have a similar view.
Foreign Aid. Israel and the United States are moving to restrict aid to the
Palestinians unless Hamas renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel, and accepts all Israeli-
Palestinian agreements. Though some within Israel and the United States have discussed
the possibility of continuing humanitarian assistance, the aid dilemma may push Hamas
toward Iran. In the late 1980s, 10% of all Hamas funding came Iran, and the government
of Iran recently pledged to transfer $250 million to the PA if Israel and the United States
cut off funding. The Arab League is to meet in March to possibly finalize an aid package
to the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia has pledged $20 million and Qatar has pledged $13
million to the PA. Saudi Arabia also plans to provide the PA with $1.2 billion in financial
assistance over the next two years. On February 27, the EU announced that it would
release $142 million in aid to the Palestinians. The aid will pay energy bills ($47 million)
and support the United Nations Refugee Works Agency ($75 million). The EU also
decided to unblock over $20 million to pay salaries; this is the only part of the new aid
package to be paid directly to the PA. The move comes in the wake of the Israeli
cabinet’s decision to withhold monthly tax payments to the Palestinians and the U.S.
demand that the PA return $50 million in aid to prevent it from falling into Hamas’ hands.
Aboul Gheit stated his belief that Hamas will evolve and that Egypt and the United States
should not prejudge the issue.
! Ahmed Qurei: Qurei first joined Fatah in 1968 and headed the PLO’s
financial portfolio. He founded the Palestinian Economic Council for
Development and Construction. He also served as Prime Minister
between 2003-2005.
Fatah’s Challenges. Fatah is out of power for the first time in its history and,
some say, may have to alter its political outlook in order to regain popularity.
New Political Role. In addition to corruption, many claim that ongoing power
struggles between “old guard” Fatah stalwarts and “young guard” members contributed
to political fissures within the party, which Hamas exploited in the parliamentary
elections. The inability of Fatah leaders to contain old-guard/new-guard tensions have
reportedly increased internal political dysfunction. As a result of poor party discipline,
multiple party lists, and limited technical preparation for the parliamentary vote, Fatah
gained only 45 parliamentary seats (out of 132). Fatah did, however, capture 42% of the
popular vote.
Fatah faces a need to re-evaluate its political agenda, tackle corruption, and rebuild
the allegiance of its constituents, who launched mass demonstrations immediately
following the elections and called for the resignation of Fatah’s central committee. For
Fatah to compete effectively, it will most likely need to cultivate effective internal
methods of conflict resolution, consensus building, and reconcile intra-party rivalry.
President vs. Parliament. Many observers fear that unless a national unity
coalition government is formed, the PA may be hampered by infighting, rivalry, and
political deadlock or even civil war. A situation whereby the President does not belong
to the ruling parliamentary bloc is foreign to Palestinian politics and some contend that
President Abbas will have great difficulty implementing his goal of a negotiated
settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Other experts point to Abbas’ own
declarations that suggest he may resign if his political vision of a negotiated settlement
to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is not followed. Still others contend that if Hamas resists
President Abbas or refuses to dissociate itself from violence, Abbas may dissolve the
parliament and call for new elections.
Outlook
The full implications of Hamas’ victory in the January 2006 parliamentary elections
are not yet clear. The most significant question may be whether Hamas’ participation in
government, and the responsibility that accompanies elected office will moderate its
militancy. As for Fatah, although it accepted the outcome of the parliamentary elections,
its political future is uncertain. While recent reports suggest that Fatah may have agreed
in principle to join Hamas in a national coalition government, Fatah hardliners may decide
to undermine the government from within or leave the coalition government in protest.
The future of the PLO is also undecided. As signatory to all peace agreements with Israel,
the PLO has the authority to continue negotiations. Hamas is not a member of the PLO.
As head of the PLO, President Abbas may elect to conduct future negotiations via the
PLO’s good offices although his defacto political authority to do so is questionable. Yet
CRS-6
there are growing signs that Hamas may wish to join the PLO in a move designed to
possibly re-shape the organization and bring it within Hamas’ sphere of influence.
There is little doubt that the Hamas electoral victory complicates U.S. policy toward
the Palestinians and its wider strategy of democracy promotion in the Middle East.
Following the election, President Bush stated that the results had “given a wake-up call
to the leadership,” adding that “a party that articulates the destruction of Israel is a party
with which we will not deal.”2 Many in Congress appear to support isolating Hamas
economically unless it recognizes Israel and disavows violence, while others are
concerned that any funding void will be filled by Saudi Arabia, or possibly Iran. Still
other experts contend that if the Palestinian economic crisis deepens, Hamas may be able
to exploit decreases in U.S. aid to deflect any possible criticism that the new government
is unable to improve Palestinian lives, and lay the blame on U.S. policy.
Recent Legislation
H.R. 4668 (introduced in the House International Relations Committee on January
31,2006) resolves that the President would have to certify, among other conditions, that
the PA is not controlled by a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO).
S. 2237 the Palestinian Compliance Act of 2006 (introduced in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on February 1, 2006) includes a requirement that the President’s
waiver authority (Section 550 (b) of P.L. 109-102, the FY2006 Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act) may only be used if the PA renounces terrorism and recognizes
Israel’s right to exist and takes appropriate steps to amend the Hamas Covenant to delete
statements that are hostile to Israel and that support violence.
S.Con.Res. 79 (passed the Senate on February 1, 2006, and referred to the House
International Relations Committee on February 7, 2006) resolves that it is the sense of
Congress that no U.S. assistance should be provided directly to the PA if any
representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the PA
maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.
2
White House Press Conference, January 26, 2006.