Last November, Kadima released its national agenda, the first point of which is: “The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel. However, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, part of the land of Israel must be given up to maintain a Jewish and democratic state.”

Here is a party that embodies a spirit of compromise and defeatism. The argument is that unilaterally “finalizing” Israel’s borders (as if, against all historical logic, its Arab enemies would ever consider those borders “final”) demonstrates Israeli resolve and decisiveness. But in reality, giving away land to your enemy has never worked. Chunks of Europe were ceded to Germany in the 1930s in an effort to appease; it sure didn’t work then. It seems the Jews have forgotten.

Under Ariel Sharon, Kadima’s policy of unilateral withdrawals drew immense support from Israelis. Upon Sharon’s incapacitation by a stroke in January, many expected support of Kadima to falter, with party leadership now lacking Sharon’s commanding personality and military credentials. It did falter a little, but the appeal of unilateral withdrawals—a futile hope for peace by a worn-down populace—ensured Kadima remained popular with its new leader Ehud Olmert.

But then came the Palestinian parliamentary elections and Hamas’s landslide win. Surely the threat of a terrorist-controlled Palestinian Authority would trigger a swing to the right in Israel—a desire for strong leadership with hardline policies to ensure Israel’s security. That did not happen.

In fact, in Israel’s elections, Likud—Israel’s main conservative party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu—as of latest results to hand, has come in fourth place, with just 12 seats won (in 2003 elections, it won 38). Contrast this with Kadima’s win of 29 seats and the center-left Labor with 20.

Kadima won this victory campaigning on a platform of withdrawals from Israeli territory—this, despite the takeover of Palestinian politics by terrorist group Hamas.

Though Kadima does not appear to have won as overwhelmingly as some had predicted, it nevertheless has the ability to form a governing coalition, likely, in large part, with the dovish Labor.

Olmert promised to fulfill his election pledge to carry out withdrawals from parts of the West Bank. In what amounted to his victory speech, the acting prime minister of Israel told the Palestinian leadership: “We are ready to compromise, to give up parts of the beloved land of Israel … and evacuate, under great pain, Jews living there, in order to create the conditions that will enable you to fulfill your dream and live alongside us” (bbc News, March 29).

Firstly, Olmert stated, “We will try to achieve this [setting the final borders of Israel] in an agreement with the Palestinians.” It is difficult to determine just how borders of a country can be agreed upon with a negotiating partner that does not believe that country should even exist.

Fact is, the Jews are no longer willing to fight for what they believe is theirs. This is a very dangerous position to be in, for a country surrounded by enemies bent on its destruction.

Some may think the new Palestinian government, ruled by the terrorist group Hamas, might choose peace. The facts show, however, that Hamas’s political success has not moderated it, but emboldened it. Hamas still refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, denounce the use of terrorism or give up its arms. It considers all previously signed agreements with Israel to be void.

This is the party that the Palestinian people—whose dreams Olmert wants to help fulfill—have chosen to represent them.

Now, to confirm that its goal—the destruction of Israel—has not changed, Hamas has revealed the composition of the new Palestinian cabinet—and it is filled top to bottom with Hamas hardliners: terrorist leaders who have been in the vanguard of attacks against Israeli citizens. On March 27, Hamas submitted the cabinet list for a vote of confidence in the Parliament, which handily approved it yesterday. The new cabinet will be installed tomorrow.

“[D]efying international pressure and confounding hopes that it would moderate its extremist stance,” the victorious Islamist group “nominated a cabinet whose senior members have all been jailed, deported and escaped Israeli assassination [for their roles in terrorist strikes against Israelis]” (Times,March 21).

Of the 24 cabinet members, 19 represent Hamas—and it is not much of a stretch to presume the remaining five have considerable Hamas sympathies, having agreed to join the cabinet.

The prime minister-designate, Ismail Haniyeh, was the face of Hamas during its election campaign. Haniyeh has been imprisoned twice, the target of at least one assassination attempt by Israel, and expelled from the Palestinian territories for his role in terrorist attacks. “Haniyeh has always favored violence over diplomacy, and said the Hamas wins in the municipal elections in 2005 were proof that the majority of Palestinians support terrorism against Israel” (Jewish Virtual Library). And this is the man who is meant to give a more acceptable image to Hamas.

Three other senior positions within the cabinet line-up have been given to even more virulent hardliners. Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza, is a firebrand hardliner known for his hostility to Israel and the United States. It was he who declared last year that the armed conflict that resulted in Israel’s “defeat” in Gaza will continue until Jews leave not just the West Bank, but all of Israel. This man is to be the Palestinians’ foreign minister.

The interior minister’s post is to go to Said Siyam, jailed four times by Israelis during the first Palestinian intifada—this individual will be in charge of Palestinian security services.

The new finance minister is Omar Abdel-Razeq, also jailed by Israelis—released (conveniently) the most recent time less than two weeks ago. Upon confirmation of his appointment, Abdel-Razeq plans to commence a tour of Arab nations to secure alternative funding to fill the gap should Western donors cut off funding.

And these are the “politicians” that still give some people hope in democracy. In all honestly, does this sound like a Hamas wanting to wipe the slate clean and make peace with Israel?

Things do not look good for Israel. The prime minister that Israelis voted into office yesterday, while refusing to negotiate with a terrorist-led Palestinian government, proposes to continue with a policy of unilateral withdrawals. This move is supposedly meant to defy the terrorists. But Hamas likely doesn’t mind how the Jews vacate “its” land—in the final analysis, any territory Israel withdraws from simply becomes, in effect, a Hamas state.

Unfortunately, Israel is surrounded by enemies—which are being emboldened by a resurgent Iran—and its fortunes will only get worse before they get better. Our booklet Jerusalem in Prophecy describes how these events fit into biblical prophecy and what the ultimate—positive—outcome will be.