Only someone who has deluded himself for the past 15 years
about the core beliefs of Yasser Arafat and his Fatah party
would say that a Palestinian Authority with Hamas in power is
any worse than one with Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and the
Fatah in power.
Less than a year after the Oslo agreements, and about half a
year before he won the Nobel Peace Prize, Yasser Arafat gave
a famous speech in English in Johannesburg, South Africa, in
which he said quite openly that he regarded it just like an
agreement signed by Mohammed that Mohammed ignored when be
became strong enough to do so.
In May, 2002, the Israeli government published a very long
report entitled, "The Involvement of Arafat, PA Senior
Officials and Apparatuses in Terrorism against Israel,
Corruption and Crime," which concluded, "Israel . . . has
obtained clear-cut hard evidence that the Palestinian
Authority under Yasser Arafat is a supporting, encouraging,
and actively-operating body of terror. Arafat and his close
aides are directly responsible for the cold-blooded murder of
Israeli citizens."
In addition, in Arabic Arafat spoke constantly about his
commitment to fighting. The official PA media and textbooks
glorify martyrdom and insist that the homeland must be freed
through murder. Suicide bombers are held up as role models.
For example, the summer camps for children run by the PA are
named after suicide bombers.
As recently as the beginning of December, Mahmoud Abbas, head
of the PA, approved a law "granting a monthly allowance to
the family of every shahid (martyr), taken from the
general budget of the [Palestinian] National Authority,"
according to the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-
Jadida. The allowance is increased if he was married and
there is an increment for each child. Even the parents and
brothers get a small monthly stipend.
Hamas' 9,000-word charter, written in 1988, calls for the
elimination of Israel and Jews from all Islamic land and
portrays the Jews as evil. As a prominent Hamas leader from
Gaza put it after his party won in last week's election, "We
do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our
neighbor, nor to stay, nor his ownership of any inch of
land."
There is no difference in core beliefs nor any dispute
between the PA and Hamas as to their ultimate goal. The only
difference is that Arafat and Abbas were willing to condemn
attacks on civilians at the same time that they supported
them. Hamas is not willing to say this.
Thus, in political and military terms, Hamas is no worse than
the PA. Both want and are willing to do the same thing.
With regard to the prospects for peace, the situation is
similar. The PA always gives the impression that it is
pragmatic and pursuing peace by what it says. However an
evaluation of what it does makes it clear that it has
consistently and relentlessly pursued the destruction of the
Jews.
In Hamas these two are in harmony. Both in word and in deed
it relentlessly pursues the death of the Jews. Why does that
make it worse than the PA? Certainly actions speak louder
than words.
The lies and deception of the PA were not just directed at
the Jews and the world at large. The leaders of the PA lied
to and cheated their own people as well. This was widely
known but no one did anything about it until the Palestinian
people threw out the crooks.
Hamas, in contrast, has a reputation for thoroughgoing
honesty and lack of corruption. That was certainly why they
were brought in, since, as we pointed out, there is no large
difference between the parties on "foreign policy."
As we have discussed many times in the past, morality cannot
be practiced selectively and it cannot be practiced
superficially. One who cheats his enemies will likely cheat
his friends if the opportunity arises.
We do not presume to judge people. We do not even consider
the question of whether a murderer who consistently speaks
the truth is "better" than a murderer who consistently
lies.
We also cannot foresee the future. Things are so clearly in
the sure hands of the Ribono Shel Olom and we wait to
see what He has in store for us. We do not know if this is a
first step that will be followed by others or simply a good
step that will lead nowhere.
However, we can see when there is a clear moral improvement
— when the leaders of our closest and most important
neighbor are honest in speech and not corrupt in practice
— and we can applaud it. Whoever is truly sensitive to
moral issues should join us.
