Fatah wins the 2006 Palestinian elections

It could have, and arguably should have. Hams won by only around 3% -- 30,000 votes out of over a million. The way the votes were apportioned (a mix of list and districts) turned that into a whopping majority in Palestine's Legislative Council -- 74 seats out of 132. But a fairly small shift of votes would have given Fatah the win.

OTL, Fatah lost for a variety of reasons. They were internally divided; they were corrupt and complacent; they'd never run a modern, competitive election, didn't really know how, and didn't try to learn. There seems to have been a vague sense that if Hamas was threatening to win, Fatah could just Do Something -- cancel the elections (which they very nearly did OTL), refuse to accept the results, what have you.

Now, OTL the election results were pretty much a disaster all around. Israel refused to recognize or in any way deal with a Hamas-dominated government. The Palestinian government has two major sources of revenue: foreign aid, and customs revenues -- the latter being collected by Israel at the borders, and then passed along. Both were cut off. Fairly soon, civil servants and police were rioting or walking off their jobs. Hamas moved to replace the absent police with Hamas "volunteers"; Fatah sharply objected. Within a few months the situation had degenerated into a shooting war between the two. When the dust settled, Fatah was running the West Bank, while Hamas was in charge in Gaza. Palestine had been effectively split in two, and remains so today.

Okay, so: what if Fatah had won? Let's flip that 3% and give Fatah a narrow majority in the Council, with Hamas and the minor parties controlling 60 or so seats.

Now what?

Ariel Sharon still has his stroke, so our hypothetical unified Palestinian government is dealing with Ehud Olmert. We probably still get something like Annapolis, but maybe TTL something actually comes of it?

Also, no 2008 invasion of Gaza -- Hamas is busy being an opposition party.

Any chance for a significant breakthrough during Olmert's administration? Or would it end up not making much difference?


Doug M.
 
They'd pledged to in advance. (In contrast to '96, when they boycotted the elections and refused to accept their results.)

And then OTL they entered into a coalition with Fatah after the elections -- the "National Unity Government". It only lasted four months, but at least some in Hamas seem to have sincerely tried to make it work.

And even if they don't want to be in opposition -- in this TL the money isn't cut off, so the cops aren't walking off their jobs, so there's no power vacuum.

So I think "loyal opposition, more or less peaceful" is the way to bet, at least in the short term.


Doug M.
 
Bump.

Nobody thinks a successful election would make a difference? No hope for the peace process? Having an Islamist party as the loyal opposition in a more-or-less parliamentary democracy has no knock-ons around the region.

Well, this probably eliminates Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. So, Hamas' missile attacks don't happen, and neither does Israel's invasion of Gaza. Any effects from that?


Doug M.
 

Cook

Banned
They'd pledged to in advance. (In contrast to '96, when they boycotted the elections and refused to accept their results.)

They pledged to because their polling was indicating they were going to win. The region is replete with political parties and presidential candidates promising to honour the election results only to change their tune once they find they’ve been defrauded by the result.
And then OTL they entered into a coalition with Fatah after the elections -- the "National Unity Government". It only lasted four months, but at least some in Hamas seem to have sincerely tried to make it work.

It’s a power sharing government rather than a Coalition since there is no opposition Doug.

So I think "loyal opposition, more or less peaceful" is the way to bet, at least in the short term.

Perhaps I am too cynical but unfortunately developing the habit of accepting that people are allowed to be ‘mistaken’ in the way they vote, and they will change their mind at the next election if you are more persuasive seems to be a very hard thing to learn.

I am inclined to think that accusations of electoral fraud by Fatah would be made immediately and given Fatah's less than spotless history they would be believed by a great number of people.

With private militias being run by the political parties a civil war seems inevitable.
 
I doubt there would be much progress in peace talks. After "Operation Cast Lead" Israel was put under a great deal of international pressure. Absent that, and with Fatah running both Palestinian territories, I doubt the Israelis would feel the need to make any major concessions, which are absolutely necessary if there's going to be a realistic peace settlement. Absent the Israeli withdraw from the West Bank there will be no peace.
 
I doubt there would be much progress in peace talks. After "Operation Cast Lead" Israel was put under a great deal of international pressure. Absent that, and with Fatah running both Palestinian territories, I doubt the Israelis would feel the need to make any major concessions, which are absolutely necessary if there's going to be a realistic peace settlement. Absent the Israeli withdraw from the West Bank there will be no peace.

Err, why would the Isrealis launch Operation Cast Lead without dozens of Qasams flying in from Gaza?
 
It could have, and arguably should have. Hams won by only around 3% -- 30,000 votes out of over a million. The way the votes were apportioned (a mix of list and districts) turned that into a whopping majority in Palestine's Legislative Council -- 74 seats out of 132. But a fairly small shift of votes would have given Fatah the win.

OTL, Fatah lost for a variety of reasons. They were internally divided; they were corrupt and complacent; they'd never run a modern, competitive election, didn't really know how, and didn't try to learn. There seems to have been a vague sense that if Hamas was threatening to win, Fatah could just Do Something -- cancel the elections (which they very nearly did OTL), refuse to accept the results, what have you.

Now, OTL the election results were pretty much a disaster all around. Israel refused to recognize or in any way deal with a Hamas-dominated government. The Palestinian government has two major sources of revenue: foreign aid, and customs revenues -- the latter being collected by Israel at the borders, and then passed along. Both were cut off. Fairly soon, civil servants and police were rioting or walking off their jobs. Hamas moved to replace the absent police with Hamas "volunteers"; Fatah sharply objected. Within a few months the situation had degenerated into a shooting war between the two. When the dust settled, Fatah was running the West Bank, while Hamas was in charge in Gaza. Palestine had been effectively split in two, and remains so today.

Okay, so: what if Fatah had won? Let's flip that 3% and give Fatah a narrow majority in the Council, with Hamas and the minor parties controlling 60 or so seats.

Now what?

Ariel Sharon still has his stroke, so our hypothetical unified Palestinian government is dealing with Ehud Olmert. We probably still get something like Annapolis, but maybe TTL something actually comes of it?

Also, no 2008 invasion of Gaza -- Hamas is busy being an opposition party.

Any chance for a significant breakthrough during Olmert's administration? Or would it end up not making much difference?


Doug M.

One thing that the Palestinians have shown since 1917 (when the British drove out the Ottomans) is an amazing ability to not only lose every battle but make their position worse with every decision they make.

They always compromise after the train has left the station. They rejected all compromise over Jewish immigration in the 1920's. Churchill himself (when colonial secretary) said that they were completely unrealistic and unreasonable.

They showed sympathy for Hitler in World war two because they thought he was going to win.

They rejected all compromise in 1948 because they believed their Arab brothers would drive the Jews into the sea.

In the 40's, 50's and 60's they refused to negotiate because they still thought that the Arabs (equipped with modern Soviet weapons) would soon destroy Israel.

They established groups like the PLO that targetted civilians and killed more Palestinians than they did Israelis (though they killed some Israeli athletes at an Olympics).

They allied themselves with anti western regimes even though Western governments were the only ones that had influence with Israel.

The PLO tried to take over Jordan so they were kicked out.

They tried to destroy Lebannon until they were kicked out.

In 1991 Yasser Arafat sided with Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait and so hundreds of thousands of Palestinians got kicked out of there too.

The USSR disappears and the PLO tries to be friends with the West but ... surprise, surprise they are not trusted!!!

In 2006 the Palestinian people chose Hamas because yes Fatah/PLO were corrupt but also because they were compromising with Israel.

Hamas said no to compromise or recognition.

The Palestinians are not and WILL NEVER accept any party that accepts Jews living on what they see as Arab land.

A Fatah victory would result in Hamas attacking Israel and Israel retaliates by attacking the Palestinian authority for not controlling Hamas. Pretty much what happens anyway.
 
They pledged to because their polling was indicating they were going to win.

Actually, that was unclear. Pre-election polls indicated a close race that could go either way.


It’s a power sharing government rather than a Coalition since there is no opposition Doug.

I don't think that's a formal distinction. In any event, there were four small parties (PFLP, Independent Palestine, etc.) that were not included in the coalition.




With private militias being run by the political parties a civil war seems inevitable.

OTL it took six months, and a huge shove in the form of donor and customs funds being cut off, to get the civil war started. That doesn't look "inevitable" to me.


Doug M.
 
The Palestinians are not and WILL NEVER accept any party that accepts Jews living on what they see as Arab land.

Actually, Fatah has recognized Israel's right to exist since 1993. No boundaries have been confirmed, but then Israel hasn't confirmed any boundaries for Palestine either.

-- I realize this is a touchy topic. Still, it would be nice if we could proceed without too much ranting or frothing.


Doug M.
 
Actually, Fatah has recognized Israel's right to exist since 1993. No boundaries have been confirmed, but then Israel hasn't confirmed any boundaries for Palestine either.

-- I realize this is a touchy topic. Still, it would be nice if we could proceed without too much ranting or frothing.


Doug M.

I was just drawing your attention to a pattern.

Fatah may have officially accepted Israels right to exist but I think I am right in asserting that most Palestinians don't.

Any Palestinian party that compromises with Israel risks losing support to extremists.
 
I was just drawing your attention to a pattern.

This is a hoary old argument, and anyone familiar with the situation will have heard it a thousand times already. "There's no way to reason with these people! They're completely irrational!" "Yes, and have you seen how they live?"



Fatah may have officially accepted Israels right to exist but I think I am right in asserting that most Palestinians don't.

"I think I am right". So right that you can't be bothered to google it, I'm guessing. Here's a hint: this gets polled fairly regularly.

A clear majority of Palestinians support a two-state solution, and a narrow majority support mutual recognition of Israel and Palestine. Those are polls that include both West Bank and Gaza, BTW -- though unsurprisingly, the numbers are higher in West Bank, lower in Gaza.

(An interesting tangent: polls have shown a steady decline in support for Hamas in Gaza over the last 18 months, to the point where a majority of Gazans don't support Hamas any more. Support surged during and after Operation Cast Lead, but at the end of the day Hamas has not exactly brought peace and prosperity to Gaza, and their poll numbers reflect this.)

To bring this back to the counterfactual: it seems reasonable to think support would be higher in a post-election TL where Fatah has won and there's been no Operation Cast Lead.


Doug M.

 
This is a hoary old argument, and anyone familiar with the situation will have heard it a thousand times already. "There's no way to reason with these people! They're completely irrational!" "Yes, and have you seen how they live?"


(An interesting tangent: polls have shown a steady decline in support for Hamas in Gaza over the last 18 months, to the point where a majority of Gazans don't support Hamas any more. Support surged during and after Operation Cast Lead, but at the end of the day Hamas has not exactly brought peace and prosperity to Gaza, and their poll numbers reflect this.)

I understand what you're trying to say but...I don't think Palestinians ever believed that Hamas would bring them peace and prosperity!

They supported Hamas because they had enough of ineffective Fatah leadership, corruption and selling out to Israel. Also most of the gains won by Palestinians were won by young people throwing stones and braving Israeli guns in the Intifada. The PLO/Fatah were pretty useless and still are.

You could avoid some of the problems we've had recently but as I said I think the result of a Fatah victory would only be marginally different.

Firstly, Hamas would try to destabilize the Authority after the election by launching attacks on Israel. Israel would hold the Fatah Authority responsible (this already happened before) and send in tanks and helicopters and you have the violence continue.

The Fatah government can keep signing agreements to doomsday but Hamas and any offshoots would disown them and keep attacking.

As for people making the arguments I made a 1000 times already then maybe that's because there's some truth in them. Googling opinion polls doesn't change that.

The big change I guess is that they wouldn't alienate the West and especially the USA if they don't vote in Hamas. The tone of the West was one of despair when Hamas won and provided a huge boost for those Israelis who were hostile to any deal with Palestinians.
 
Firstly, Hamas would try to destabilize the Authority after the election by launching attacks on Israel. Israel would hold the Fatah Authority responsible (this already happened before)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. During the Second Intifada, Fatah and Hamas fought... well, not exactly side-by-side, but in parallel. Fatah didn't like or trust Hamas, but there was no denying their effectiveness. Israel hit back at both groups pretty much equally.

After the intifada, Hamas declared a cease-fire in January 2005, two weeks after Abu Mazen was elected President of Palestine. OTL, that ceasefire lasted for a year -- up to the elections -- and then through the life of the coalition government.

I'm not saying that the election process would magically transform Hamas into a bunch of Swedish Greens. But if they kept to a ceasefire for a year when they were a distrusted, semi-illegal militia movement, why would they abandon it when they're a legitimate political party with just under half the seats in Parliament?


As for people making the arguments I made a 1000 times already then maybe that's because there's some truth in them. Googling opinion polls doesn't change that.

"Lots of people think like me, so I don't need to check my facts."

Your assumptions seem to be that Palestinians are stupid, and that Hamas is stupid and also addicted to violence for its own sake. I don't think either of those are good starting points.


Doug M.
 
I'm not sure what you're talking about. During the Second Intifada, Fatah and Hamas fought... well, not exactly side-by-side, but in parallel. Fatah didn't like or trust Hamas, but there was no denying their effectiveness. Israel hit back at both groups pretty much equally.

After the intifada, Hamas declared a cease-fire in January 2005, two weeks after Abu Mazen was elected President of Palestine. OTL, that ceasefire lasted for a year -- up to the elections -- and then through the life of the coalition government.

I'm not saying that the election process would magically transform Hamas into a bunch of Swedish Greens. But if they kept to a ceasefire for a year when they were a distrusted, semi-illegal militia movement, why would they abandon it when they're a legitimate political party with just under half the seats in Parliament?




"Lots of people think like me, so I don't need to check my facts."

Your assumptions seem to be that Palestinians are stupid, and that Hamas is stupid and also addicted to violence for its own sake. I don't think either of those are good starting points.


Doug M.

I was talking of the 1980's Intifada. This was a spontaneous movement by Palestinains acting without the PLO leadership. It was this uprising that began to change Israeli attitudes and led them to the conference table a few years later.

I never used words like stupid or addicted to violence or violence for its own sake.

If I really thought that then I would have just used those words. I chose not to.

An election result in this context changing the dynamics is not convincing based on past evidence. Perhaps you think 60 years of history can be changed based on a small electoral swing from Hamas to Fatah.

As for checking facts I don't think opinion polls in any country mean anything. It depends on how questions are phrased and what day you ask someone.


Until recently (the 1990's) the Palestinians or at least their main leaders have based their argument on 'all or nothing'. We want our land back and we want a Palestinian state. Having their land back means Israel largley disappearing. Israel won't accept this so you have 60 years of deadlock.

A Fatah victory changes some things but nothing fundamental.
 
Hamas would rebel. Sure thing. They are no the kind of a quiet, settled, party. They consider themself as revolutionary, and would make Gaza a fort (The place where they are strong). Altrough I can see here less legitimation of them, means more propaganda fighting agaisnt Israel (because it would be useless) and more rocket-launching.
 
Hamas would rebel. Sure thing. They are no the kind of a quiet, settled, party. They consider themself as revolutionary, and would make Gaza a fort (The place where they are strong). Altrough I can see here less legitimation of them, means more propaganda fighting agaisnt Israel (because it would be useless) and more rocket-launching.

Right, but if Fatah wins then aid and customs money keeps coming in to the PA, and Palestinian security forces will stay on board with the new government because they will continue getting paid (unlike OTL). Considering that I think that Hamas breaking away and fortifying the Gaza Strip seems a lot less likely in this ATL.
 
Interesting question. If this did happen, I could see a lot of unrest among Hamas: maybe even the aforementioned fortification of Gaza. But with Palestinian government forces onboard with Fatah, I doubt that fortification of Gaza would last long: Hamas might even be banned post-bloody-put-down.
 
Interesting question. If this did happen, I could see a lot of unrest among Hamas: maybe even the aforementioned fortification of Gaza. But with Palestinian government forces onboard with Fatah, I doubt that fortification of Gaza would last long: Hamas might even be banned post-bloody-put-down.

I'm not convinced there will be a Hamas rebellion -- or at least, not at first.

One, Hamas pledged to respect the results. Sure, maybe they'd change their minds the moment they lost. But keep in mind that a big part of Hamas' appeal was their image as men of honor -- the clean party of men who kept their word, as opposed to the corruption of Fatah.

Two, if there's no cutoff of donor funding, then Hamas would have to fight police and security forces still firmly under Fatah's control, backed by a civil service bureaucracy also under Fatah's control. Hamas hadn't been able to challenge Fatah directly for years before the election; it's hard to see how losing an election would improve their strategic situation.

Three, what incentive does Hamas have to go into violent opposition? If they're part of the system, they have the usual prerequisites of an opposition party -- input into the drafting of laws, a share in oversight of the executive branch, and the chance to win big at the next election. If they start a shooting war with Fatah, the best-case scenario for them is OTL -- rule over crowded and impoverished Gaza.

That said, I think Hamas could end up abandoning the process and picking up their guns. But if they did, it wouldn't be because Hamas is inherently violent and evil. It would be because Fatah decided to use a narrow Parliamentary majority to completely freeze them out. It might be hard for Hamas to transform into a loyal opposition; it would be just as hard for Fatah to accept formal opposition.

There's a particularly dangerous dynamic here because Fatah is the party of negotiating with Israel, while Hamas is the party that Israel hates and fears. So if Fatah locks Hamas completely out of government -- even the normal participation in legislation that a large opposition party can reasonably expect -- then a lot of people on the Hamas side are going to start calling Fatah tools of the Zionist oppressor. That's not likely to end well.

So I think the success or failure of this would lie more on the Fatah side of the aisle.


Doug M.
 
Top