DoD wrote:

Reactions to the lopsided Hamas victory over Fatah last week in the
Palestinian Authority elections divided into three. Some, like the
American
Israel Public Affairs Committee expressed dismay, worried about Hamas
openly
boasting of its goal to destroy the Jewish state, seeing this as the end
of
the peace process.

Others, like former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, gulped hard and defied
common sense to hope that following Hamas winning 74 seats to Fatah's 45
in
the 132-seat legislative council, it would be tamed and transformed into
Israel's peace partner.

A third group, such as Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, determined
that
the Hamas success was "by far the best result" because it offers an
"unambiguous reality check into the nature of Palestinian society."

And me? The Hamas victory leaves me neutral with regard to the
Arab-Israeli
conflict.

Not much separates Hamas anti-Zionism from Fatah anti-Zionism except that
Hamas terrorists speak forthrightly while Fatah terrorists obfuscate.
Even
their tactics overlap, as Fatah denies the existence of Israel and Hamas
negotiates with Israelis. Differing emphases and styles, more than
substance, distinguishes their attitudes toward Israel.

I abominate Hamas and have called for its destruction, but I also
recognize
that the elections might bring benefits, prompting Israelis finally to
recognize the deep and pervasive anti-Zionism in the Palestinian body
politic. Hamas and Fatah together won all but thirteen seats in the
legislative council. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a
leftist terrorist group, got three seats; three leftist parties -
Al-Badil
(or The Alternative List), the Independent Palestine List, and the Third
Way
List - each won two seats; and four independents won seats. With the
possible exception of some marginal figures, then, the legislative
council
wall-to-wall rejects Israel's right to exist. Or, in David Horowitz's
biting
description, Palestinians are "the first terrorist people."

The Palestinian election outcome resulted partly from more than a decade
of
misrule by Yasir Arafat and his cronies, who stole, plotted, embezzled,
and
ran roughshod over their subjects. Hamas, in contrast, built a record of
community service, relative probity, and modesty. Looked at positively,
the
success of Hamas implies that Palestinians do take other matters into
consideration besides eliminating Israel. Looked at negatively, they
merely
prefer honest terrorists to dishonest ones.

The strong Hamas victory, writes Steven Plaut of Haifa University, is
"the
only thing that stands a chance of forcing Israelis to open their eyes
and
wake up." Its ascent might conceivably wake others up too; will Spain's
blinkered government note the recent call by a Hamas children's
publication
for the city of Seville to be returned to Muslim rule?

Possibly. But I hold out meager hope that Hamas-in-power will provide a
reality check. The "peace process" community will not give up its
cherished
negotiations just because a murderous totalitarian organization has been
elected. As has inexorably been the case since 1993, it will ignore this
setback and press ahead for more Israeli concessions.

I predict an approximate repeat performance of the pressure on Arafat in
1982-88 to renounce terrorism. But Robert Satloff of the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, an acute observer of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, doubts that Hamas will be compelled even to match Arafat's
concessions back then.

I also expect that, despite bold statements how it will not change, Hamas
will play along with the verbal demands on it. Feeling a financial pinch
and
diplomatic pressure, its leaders will adopt Arafat's habit of delivering
opaque hints and saying one thing in English and another in Arabic. Like
Arafat, they might even "renounce" terrorism or pretend to change their
Protocols-laced covenant.

Indeed, what Yossi Klein Halevi calls "the era of the wink and the hint"
has
already begun, with Hamas largely desisting from terrorism against Israel
during its declared tahdiya (calming down) in 2005, then somewhat
moderating
its rhetoric in recent weeks; for example, it proposed a 15-year truce
with
Israel. The makeover shows signs of success: former U.S. president Bill
Clinton, often an opinion bellwether, has just urged the Bush
administration
to consider dealing with Hamas.

I predict Palestinian-Israeli negotiations will resume their glorious
record
of bringing goodwill, harmony, and tranquility, with Israel this time
facing
a far more determined and clever foe than the blighted Arafat or the
hapless
Mahmoud Abbas.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21096