Hamastan Good for the Jews? Not likely.

As the Gaza civil war winds down and Hamas stands triumphant, pundits and lowly schmoes like your humble correspondent alike scratch their heads and wonder the all-important question: Good for the Jews?

Some people, amazingly enough, are saying yes. Various Arutz Sheva commentators, and this random guy, are saying that Hamastan could be good, or at least useful, for Israel. The logic, as best as I can follow it, is that the more power Hamas gets, the stronger the case that there is no real peace partner among the Palestinians- especially if Fatah (which rightist Zionists would argue, with some justification, is not al that "moderate" in the first place) is increasingly losing support. This in turn further erodes any reason to pressure Israel into making concessions, territorial or otherwise, to the Palestinians (of course, this remains to be seen). One optimistic writer said the following:

One specific ramification of a Hamas victory is that without Hamas recognition of the Oslo Accords, it cannot demand that Israel fulfill its Oslo-obligation to provide a land-corridor between Gaza and Judea. Fatah, however, does recognize Olso.

And so any deterioration of Fatah's position is great for anyone (Jew, Christian, what have you) who's against Two States. A-7 writer Gerald Honigman writes,

The fight Abbas & Co. have with Hamas is basically over who gets control of the money, which is and will be pouring in. Arafat made zillions this way. It is also about, of course, which group will be calling the shots - literally and figuratively speaking.

So, guess what? I'm backing a Hamas victory. No more bull manure.

...Israel must not be lured once again to fight according to the Arabs' game plan. A Hamas "win" must turn into its own destruction. As President George W. Bush has said, those who support terrorists will suffer their fate. When America warred with Germany and Japan, it didn't worry much about civilians killed along the way during the fire bombings and so forth. Unlike those World War II conflicts, the war the Jews have been continuously forced to fight is about the very existence of their sole, tiny, reborn nation.

...Hamastan will give Israel a chance to face its mortal, genocidal, rejectionist enemies head on, with gloves removed. And it must do so this time in a way that will remove the smirk Arabs have been wearing since the war in Lebanon last year.

Of course, there are a few problems with this analysis. It seems to rest on the assumption that the Two-State-Solution model is inherently flawed, since what the Palestinians really want to do is kill Jews, not have peace. Ironically, in this scenario Hamas actually becomes a great asset to the Zionist right, not unlike the IRA to the British- the more violent and radical your opponents, the less you have to take them seriously, and the more you can justify shooting them all and let God sort them out, a-la Honigman. Any Hamas victory castrates diplomatic options and leaves only military action or "defensive hunkering." Or, as Sultan puts it,

The world had put its hope in a Fatah regime that was rotten to the core all along. Arafat's government was nothing more than a nepotist clique of relatives and the relatives of political allies. The vast majority of the billions that the world poured into Ramallah went back overseas into foreign bank account and into the mansions and luxury automobiles of the Fatah elite. But when Arafat died, Fatah's ability to rule in Arafat's place ended.

...Once the end comes for Fatah, the Oslo Accords die their final death. Continued negotiations with Hamas is something that even the doves find tricky because it's hard to negotiate with people who won't agree to peace accords and only negotiate for truces in the fighting and don't recognize the people across the table from them.

...Only two options remain. The military option and the surrender option. To either retake the territories and expel the terrorists or to surrender and evacuate Israel. Oslo is dead. The final phase begins.

Sad to say, but I think he's right about the Two-State-Solution for now. Regardless of what you thought of Fatah, there's no way in hell peace is coming from Hamas anytime soon.

Of course, if you're convinced that all the Palestinians are potential enemies and the only reasonable solution is to run them off the land, I can see how the marginalization of Fatah or open demonstrations that it's not as enlightened as it likes to pretend might be nice, but I still don't see how this can be seen as a "good" turn of events. Some former generals seem to agree. (Of course, they also say the only way to deal with Hamastan is for the IDF to go back into Gaza and flatten it.)

Fatah has many problems. Hell, Abbas has a lot of problems too (and his dissertation is the least of it). Its commitment to the peace process, or even peace as a basic idea, is questionable and its track record is spotty, to say the least. It has major issues with corruption and double-talk, not only to Israel and the West, but to its own people, too. Even on the street level, Fatah seems to still be trying to play both sides- chatting up its pragmatism and moderation to the West, while still sponsoring, enabling, and condoning jihad. Abbas says all the right things in English, but when push comes to shove, his nice speeches don't seem to make it into the Arabic version. The PA had decades to confront the cult of the suicide bomber being developed in Palestinian media and schools. As recently as last year, it could have taken Gaza as an opportunity to pursue peace, and it squandered it.

So why give a fig what happens to Fatah?

One simple reason: As two-faced as the PA is, as potentially untrustworthy as Abbas and his camp are, if there is to be ANY group among the Palestinians from which a real peace camp will emerge, Fatah was it. No one has to love Fatah to know that Hamas is worse. ANY gain for Hamas has to be seen as a loss for Israel. The new situation will, in no particular order:

-be worse for the Gazans, who are living through a civil war and executions in the streets, and are going to be able to enjoy a mini- repressive Islamic state of their very own;

-be worse for the West Bank, where Fatah is already moving against Hamas supporters and showing it can be just as bloody as they can (at least Fatah people could run to Egypt when Hamas took over- where are Hamasniks going to run in Ramallah?)

And yes, it will be worse for Israel, too. Any future dealings with the Palestinians, diplomatic or military, just got a hell of a lot more complicated (unless, of course, one opts for simply shelling Gaza back to the stone age, which, frankly, I don't even see the rightist of the right-wing governments doing). You think it was hard controlling weapons getting in from Egypt before? Let's see how well it works now. Hard to get the Palestinians to keep their promises? Good luck seeing if you can even TALK to Hamas without Abbas as a middle man. People who like goodies versus baddies can now rejoice, because Hamas is definitely an easy bad guy. But for anyone who had any hope of things improving any time soon, go take a nap, Honi, we'll wake you when it's over. The only reason the right is celebrating over this is that they think it will finally give justification to wipe Gaza out entirely. In the event this doesn't happen (and it probably won't), you can look forward to things getting much worse before they get better.

One last point. Even if you think that "the Palestinians showing their true colors" is a good thing, one thing is for certain: while Gaza might now become a paragon of "law and order" (or so says Hamas), getting rid of their primary rival means that Hamastan only has ONE visible- and vulnerable- enemy. After all, it's not like the two territories are contiguous. Winning Gaza so quickly means that while their Hamas brothers fight it out in the West Bank, Gazans can turn their undivided attention to improving their weapons and targetting more Israeli cities. A united Hamas state in Gaza? Kiss Sderot goodbye.