It was a surprise to everyone when the count of the ballots revealed that Hamas had won control of the Palestinian parliament. It was a surprise even to Hamas, which had boycotted such elections in the past. But there was no doubt that the vote represented the will of the Palestinian people, a resounding rejection of the corrupt Fatah party that had held power for so long. International observers all agreed that the election had been fair and honest, making it an equally resounding victory for democracy. The majority of the Palestinian people had made their choice for Hamas.
The American President was not happy to have to recognize Hamas, which the US had designated as a terrorist organization, on its accession to power. But he had, after all, taken the position of champion of democracy in the Mid-east and had been the one who pressed Israel to allow the Palestinian elections in the first place. He could not now, without hypocrisy, refuse to accept the results of the democratic election in Palestine when he had so triumphantly applauded the recent elections in Lebanon and Iraq. It was necessary now to put the best possible face on the situation, and consequently, in his speech the Palestinians on their successful election, he made frequent mention of freedom and democracy, and expressed his hope that the results would lead to peace.
In Congress, a number of legislators introduced new resolutions on behalf of AIPAC, proposing punitive sanctions on the Palestinians for having elected a "terrorist government," but these were defeated by the President's supporters, who did not wish to be seen as opposing the results of free and democratic elections, and progressives.
In Israel, there was little reason to applaud the Hamas election. The Israelis had only allowed Hamas candidates to run at the insistence of the US, which was attempting to promote democracy throughout the Mid-east, and they had placed every possible obstacle in the way of the candidates. However, this only had the result of strengthening support for Hamas. With the votes finally in, and the Israeli elections coming up, most Israeli politicians issued tough, noncompromising statements about their refusal to tolerate a "terrorist government," but the US reacted strongly against suggestions that the new Hamas ministers might be subject to arrest or assassination. It insisted that the results of a democratic election must be respected, and the new Palestinian government must be given a fair chance to display its good faith, without provocations.
Not everyone in Palestine was pleased with the results of the election, either. The members of Fatah were not happy to be losing the power they had exercised for so long, and feared the consequences of having funds under the control of Hamas. A number of Fatah militants considered armed resistance, but their wiser leaders argued that such a course of action would only further alienate the people, who already regarded the party as corrupt. When Israeli officials suggested that they might throw additional support to Fatah if they would act to subvert the new Hamas government, they correctly rejected this as an attempt to divide and conquer. They reminded the Israelis that if they had offered more tangible support to President Abbas before the elections, or released Marwan Barghouti to lead the Fatah slate, the results might have been different. Moreover, Abbas knew that he needed to establish a working relationship with the new majority as soon as possible, so he could continue to press the Israelis for peace talks.
As for Hamas itself, the situation threatened to be overwhelming at first. They had not prepared themselves to head up a government, they had not selected candidates to head up the various ministries. But the Palestinian people were impatient for their new government to begin to operate. They had voted for Hamas to have honest government, and people were demanding services: jobs, education, health care, housing. Someone was needed to meet with the foreign governments that were willing to supply funds for humanitarian and reconstruction projects, particularly in Gaza, with the Israeli settlers now removed. Arrangements had to be made with the Israelis to allow passage through the crossing so that these things could take place. Nothing could happen until the government was formed.
The obvious solution was a national unity government, headed by Abbas as President. The greatest need was for experts, not necessarily affiliated with either of the two parties, to head up the ministries. There were many disputes, particularly over the security services, but with the European and American governments insisting on having a functioning government in place before they would supply substantial aid, a compromise was finally reached, and the unity government established.
Unlike Hamas, the Islamic Jihad party had boycotted the elections, and had refused to commit to the unilateral cease fire Hamas had maintained since before the voting. They now saw their opportunity to gain more public support by positioning themselves as the true party of resistance to the occupation. However, public support for the new government was quite high as aid began to flow into the country, and the US had warned the Israelis to refrain from new assassinations or raids which might justify retaliatory action. It was of course inevitable that some rejectionist parties would attempt to break the tacit truce, to press the limits of forbearance of the other side, but when this occurred, the government was able to warn Islamic Jihad that escalation of the violence would not be tolerated if it threatened the existing peace, and that they would use force to enforce this order. This would not have been possible, even for Hamas, when the people had no hope for a peaceful and secure existence, but conditions for the Palestinians had changed.
Upon these events President Abbas was finally able to press his demands for substantive peace talks with the Israelis, pointing out that "terror" attacks had been thwarted by the Palestinian government and the excuse that there was "no partner" would no longer hold. The US government, sensing a rare opportunity to capitalize on the success of its democratic enterprise, backed up this demand. The unilateral truce that Hamas had upheld was now made official by both sides to the conflict, and the consequent release of thousands of security prisoners cemented the support of the people for their new government. Permanent, official contact was established between Israel and the PA, and talks began in order to establish the conditions for preliminary talks to establish the conditions for a final status agreement. No one expects this to actually be resolved by the existing governments, but in the meantime industry and agriculture are being renewed in the Palestinian territories, goods are flowing in and out of the country, the sea and air ports are open again, and Palestinians can now travel freely between the West Bank and Gaza.
With the number of attacks by Palestinians against Israeli targets greatly reduced, the Israeli courts are having to reconsider their previous rulings in support of the separation wall, and the confiscation of Palestinian lands, as the "security" issue becomes moot. Under pressure from the Vatican, the barriers surrounding Bethlehem have been eliminated, and tourism during the Christmas and Easter pilgrimage seasons is up. Under US pressure, the expansion of West Bank settlements has been greatly reduced, and plans are being made to evacuate some settlements, though this has yet to occur. However, the IDF has eliminated the internal checkpoints in the West Bank and has now begun to take serious measures to halt settler violence against Palestinians. Once again, Palestinian workers are being allowed into Israel. And whenever the American President gives a speech on the subject of the Mid-east, he is sure to point to the success of the democratic elections in Palestine as an example for the rest of the region to emulate.