The End of a Political Fiction? -- On Hamas Win in Palestine

Hamas’ landslide victory in the January 25 elections for the 132-seat Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) is an unprecedented turning point for politics in both Palestine and the broader Middle East. Arguably for the first time since the establishment of Israel in 1948, an official administrative power in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has strong popular support and is not directly beholden to Israeli or Western interests.
<snip>
It is hard to overstate the significance of the shift that has taken place. The Palestinian Authority under Fatah rule - with a few notable exceptions following the uprising that began in September 2000 - was generally marked by little more than verbal disputes with the Israeli government. PA security forces coordinated with the Israeli military, arrested political opponents and activists, responded to Israeli actions on the ground with little more than muted, rhetorical opposition, and routinely repeated the idiotic mantra of the “violence on both sides”. This role facilitated the demobilization and confusion of the Palestinian national movement. The real fear that the victory of Hamas brings to Israel, the US and EU is simply this: who they will call upon to control the Palestinian population now that the old PA – however ineffective and unreliable it was from their perspective - has crumbled?

Rejection of a ‘Political Fiction’

The popular vote for Hamas is principally a rejection of the disastrous negotiations process that followed the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Countless voices have criticized the Oslo Accords as a fig-leaf for the ongoing colonization of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, far removed from the avowed goal of a genuinely independent Palestinian state. Under the cover of ‘peace’ negotiations, Israel continued to encircle and isolate Palestinian towns and villages with its network of settlements, bypass roads and checkpoints. The Israeli military controlled Palestinian transit with a complicated system of permits and movement restrictions. These isolated population islands were given the trappings of autonomy but effective control remained in the hands of the Israeli state. Oslo (and the subsequent agreements) aimed at having Palestinians police themselves while allowing Israel to deepen this system of apartheid. Peace has simply acted as newspeak to mask the apartheid blueprint.

Hamas’ victory is a striking indictment of this so-called ‘peace process’. Promoted with the deliberate deceit of Western governments and the corporate media, the myth of negotiations was fully shared in by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, most particularly by individuals such as Palestinian President Abu Mazen and Prime Minister Abu Ala. The PA leadership came to represent submission and surrender under the banner of peaceful negotiations and empty condemnation of violence. Indeed, immediately prior to the Legislative Council elections, Hamas leader Khaled Mishaal pointed out that ‘the experiment of fifty years taught us this road was futile’ and Hamas would not continue to deceive the Palestinian people with this ‘political fiction’.
More...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=9631

Hamas is bad and portends much worse things to come. Israel will not sit idly by. The shit will hit the fan. Iran,Hamas,and Israel. This will come to a head within 5 years. We(the US)need to get our heads out of our asses.

are an act of barbarism equally matched by suicide bombing campaigns against innocent civilians that arose in reaction.

Land vs. people. Murder is much worse in my book than theft.

Terror has been used against Palestinians since the founding of the Israeli state.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

not within the guidelines set for the I/P forum. Nor are your comments relevant to the topic at hand.
The article stated why Hamas won, and the failures of Fateh. I encourage people to read it.

with his attitude that the palestenains can do "anything" on their own....as if they're incompetent or something. I happen to believe that what the palestenains do with their society, be it civil war, peace marches, suicide bombers, fundamenatism, democracy is their choosing and their responsabiity.

Terror has been used against Jews since the founding of the Israeli state.

I do not value land over people.

This is a first cause issue. There would not be as much strife between Palestinians and Israelis today if the Israeli government had not embarked on programs to build settlement inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The access roads and checkpoints that connect these colonies established by the Israeli government have, in practicality, no significant difference from the South African Apartheid-era bantustans that were set up to pen in and house Black people. Both Israel as well as other countries such as China are guilty of the same crime. The only difference is few talk about China intentionally settling Han Chinese in Tibet to create "facts" on the ground legitimizing their claim, something Israel has done in the West Bank/Gaza Strip.

It is not the first cause, by any stretch of the imagination. One can conclude that the strife might not be as high had the occupation not occurred, but since it did, it is simply speculation.

I must say I am surprised to see you using the Apartheid analogy, since it is not very accurate at all.

I still do not believe that the theft of land is equal to the murder of people! Land can be returned, lives cannot!

I am not the first, and I will not be the last to point the finger at Israel's horrific policies with respect to Palestinians in the West Bank and level the charge of "apartheid."

Nelson Mandela's memo to Thomas Friedman:

http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/mandela.htm

He resisted a government, heavily supported by the Israeli government (they did work on the Bomb together, after all, among other things).

Also interesting to note. Mandela could have been a free man much sooner if he accepted the "generous offer" of the apartheid govt. of south africa to limit democratic rule in Bantustans.

I respect the work he did in South Africa, but his letter sounds like he is an advocate of a one-state solution. If that is the case, then my respect for him ends in any matters concerning I/P.

You are not the first, nor will be the last, but will still be wrong nonetheless. If the WB and Gaza were actual parts of Israel, then it would be apartheid. However, WB and, formerly, Gaza were occupied. Apartheid would have been how the Palestinians were treated by the Egyptians while they occupied Gaza prior to the 1967 war, but it would not be accurate to say Jordan was guilty of the same in the WB. Why? Gaza was annexed and formally apart of Egypt. It was not the same in the WB.

Although not apartheid, the policies of the occupation are strict, and in some cases, brutal and unnecessary.

True, the West Bank/Gaza Strip were occupied as opposed to the Bantustans of Apartheid South Africa, but regardless, Mandela pointed to the atrocious living conditions in the West Bank/Gaza Strip and compared it to what he saw in his home country.

As far as I know, Mandela was and continues to be a supporter of the land for peace formula and argued with Friedman over a resolution to the decades old conflict on humanitarian grounds as well as moral grounds that the living conditions Palestinians suffer today is no different than what his people suffered under the Apartheid-era government of South Africa, but that's not going to happen as long as the West Bank is bisected by access roads and checkpoints linking the colonies scattered throughout the Bank, which has allowed Israel to dominate vital access points needed by the Palestinian economy to function, and it hasn't for a long time.

Whether or not it is technically apartheid or occupation is irrelevant to the horrible living conditions on the ground for innocent people.

"...Mandela pointed to the atrocious living conditions in the West Bank/Gaza Strip and compared it to what he saw in his home country.' Thus my saying he 'compared.' I do not disagree that there is a legitimate comparison in the conditions, but it isn't apartheid.

I am all for land for peace, but I am not for one nation. If that is what Mandela supports, then his opinions on the subject are not objective, nor peace oriented.

You say: "Whether or not it is technically apartheid or occupation is irrelevant to the horrible living conditions on the ground for innocent people." That couldn't be more inaccurate! Apartheid is used as "buzzword" and I am guessing you know that. People see that word and go into a tissy and will not explore the nuance of the I/P situation, they simply compare it to South Africa, and that is wrong and misguided. To compare the overall situation in South Africa to I/P is intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate. To compare similarities is OK because similarities do exist, however, it doesn't mean they are one in the same. Are first-degree murder and justifiable homicide the same thing? I am guessing you will say "no." However, both have dead bodies. Notice too, that first-degree is called "murder" and the justifiable one is called "homicide;" yet both end with dead people purposely killed.

I distinctly remember incidents where Israeli forces would bomb apartment buildings with 500lb bombs because a militant that's wanted lives in the building, and the result is women and children get killed, or they would bomb a car traveling through a market carrying a militant, and the result is several in the market not involved with the militant die. It's labeled "collateral damage."

Some have said they wouldn't be dead if they didn't allow the militant to seek refuge in the first place, but think about that statement for a minute. To be frank, the onus of preventing civilian deaths lie at the feet of occupying powers, not the civilians themselves. The Geneva Conventions have already enshrined such a notion.

If a criminal in a US city murdered a police officer and hid in an apartment complex, the police wouldn't bomb the whole place because they hold supreme value over the lives of innocent civilians. They'd make an effort to surround the place, evacuate the civilians, and either negotiate or take down the criminal, not level the place regardless of the presence of women and children.

then a "raid" to take the "offending person would result in at least that amount if not more.....

"surround" and evacuate the civilians?....in a war zone.....doesnt work that way.....

You demonstrated my point fantastically. Israel should drop all the colonies and evacuate all colonists out of the West Bank. If you're in Israel's position and were forced into a situation where all options lead to the deaths of innocent civilians (the only question remaining to what degree), you've lost the moral high ground in your occupation. You lost it the day you annexed the West Bank land.

israel left gaza....and in return was rewarded with missles and mortors flying over the border attempting to kill more israelis....

and your solution for such attacks are?......

If Israel were to do the same in the West Bank, sure, you may get a few more of those incidents, but how much would you bet that total evacuation of the West Bank of Jewish colonists, in the long-run, would save more lives and ultimately reduce friction between ordinary Palestinians and Israelis?

What is your counter-argument? That Israel should do the opposite and continue to expand its colonies in the West Bank and build even more checkpoints? Are you arguing Israel should have never evacuated colonists out of the Gaza Strip at all?

I brought up the innocents killed in Israeli raids in the West Bank/Gaza Strip. "Why?" you ask? Tell me: What does it matter to the dead how they were killed be it a suicide bomber or a guided missile or bomb from an Israeli warplane? It doesn't, for they are dead either way.

From my perspective, there's blood on the hands of leaders on both sides of the conflict. We can argue over how many liters of blood is on whose hands, but the point of the matter is that blood belongs to people who have suffered and died as a result of the confluence of the insane policies of colonialism supported by groups such as the Likudniks with the insane policies of groups such as Hamas.

Innocents on both sides have paid the price for their stupidity, and I refuse to play the part of advocating either the Palestinian side or the Israeli side but, rather, the side of humanity for all, and as a result, I condemn the Israeli government's barbarity almost as bitterly as I condemn Hamas' murderous suicide bombing campaigns.

I said I do not see land theft and murder as equal. I don't care who does the theft or the murder, land is never greater than human life!

Many Palestinians have been killed defending their homes and crops and their lives and their basic human rights.

I guess this will have to be one more thing we disagree on because I do not think that theft of land and murder are even remotely equal. Land can be returned or replaced, lives cannot!

Many Jews have been killed defending their homes and crops and their lives and their right to a nation.

In deed, not just in words.
If it were only the Settler thugs who attack Palestinian farmers, that would be one thing.

However, the dispossession of Palestinian homes and crops is very deliberate policies of the government, approved by Labor, Likud, and all the rest, all in their comfy offices. Why this madness?

I understand that the taking of a human life is the worst crime, and certainly Israel has been very good in that as well. Still, the taking of homes and livelihoods is also a crime we cannot condone.

In deeds and words!

If you understand that taking a human life is the worst crime (and the Palestinian groups have made it into a sick 'art-form'), then why did you even respond to my post with anti-Israeli rhetoric, instead of just agreeing? In your responses, you made it appear that land was more important, despite your above statement.

In my original post, I didn't even distinguish between Israeli or Palestinian lives or land. Yet, my statement was followed with anti-Israeli posturing for you and another poster. Why?

How many innocents have died in suicide attacks?

What is your point? You stated that land theft and murder are "equally barbarous." I disagree. Land can be returned or exchanged, lives cannot. So do you think land and lives are equal? If not, and you agree that murder is actually worse than land theft, why the responses with anti-Israeli rhetoric?

GC4, Article 28



As for your comparison with police - in the process of reaching the complex, surrounding it, evacuating the civilians, and negotiating, how likely it is that they will be shot at (from all directions) the entire time?

Hastings - University of California/San Francisco Law School.