Free at last
In my view, Hamas form the bulk of the legitimate government of Palestine (although there is no Palestinian state). They had a decisive victory in elections in January 2006. The EU declared these elections to be free and fair. Hamas went on to form a national unity government with Fatah in March 2007.
However, despite all of this, the so-called 'international community' has refused to deal with Hamas. The EU, the US, and Israel all favour Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who was the Palestinian President, and have marginalised Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, who was the Palestinian Prime Minister. The political system in Palestine is semi-presidentialism, whereby power is divided between a president and a prime minister who is answerable to a parliamentary assembly. A friend and fellow blogger is writing his thesis on semi-presidentialism in Palestine.
In any case, this fragile set-up between Hamas and Fatah continued for a while despite the fact that many powerful external actors would only speak to Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, instead of dealing with the government as a whole. Indeed, Israel attempted to blow up Hamas members of government in the Gaza Strip at every opportunity. Eventually, relations between these partners in the Palestinian government have broken down.
Hamas politician Khalil al-Hayya
Israel bombed his home, killing his wife and six of his family
The current situation is that, following fighting between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas have now taken control of the Gaza Strip and Fatah are in control of the West Bank. As can be seen from the map, both territories are entirely separate (although the map does not show the extent to which Israel has encroached into the West Bank so that it has now shrunk significantly in size). Mahmoud Abbas has declared that Haniyeh is dismissed as Prime Minister, but Haniyeh and his Hamas colleagues have refused to accept this. But there is an evident consensus throughout much of the mainstream media and the major actors of the international political establishment that it is Fatah who are legitimate. Abbas is still recognised as the Palestinian President, whereas Haniyeh is described as a terrorist.
This is the background to Johnston's release. Having taken over Gaza, Hamas are probably hoping that they will gain some credit for freeing Johnston. But they surely realise that the situation is unlikely to change to any significant extent. The main external players with regard to the issue of Palestine are known as the quartet: the US, the EU, the UN and Russia. Although Russia has made some attempts to gain more recognition for the Hamas government, the other three legs of the quartet are steadfastly anti-Hamas. This amounts to backing up Israel's position.
As I said, for me Hamas are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians. Despite the fact that I have plenty of problems with the group, I reckon that the only practical, rational course of action to any man, woman or child in the occupied Palestinian territories (particularly in Gaza) is to support Hamas. But I reckon that Hamas will continue to be isolated, despite a BBC report suggesting that there may be the potential for a change in attitudes to Hamas - but then, I tend to be pretty pessimistic about these things.
The Army of Islam group that had been holding Johnston is also one of the groups responsible for the kidnap of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006. It was following Shalit's kidnapping that Israel intensified its targeting of Hamas - an Israeli helicopter fired two rockets into the home of Ismail Haniyeh a week later. The fate of this young soldier is a key issue for Israel. It is awful to think of the 19 year old soldier - who was injured during the kidnapping - being held by kidnappers for over a year. However, at least he was a military target, whereas Alan Johnston is a civilian. Meanwhile, about 800 Palestinians are being held in Israeli 'administrative detention' - in other words, being held without being charged with any crime.
The young Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit
Certainly the Israel state considers itself at war with Hamas - in yet another of its frequent extrajudicial executions, Israel killed at least six Hamas members the night after Johnston's release. Yet one of its three stated reasons for refusing to deal with Hamas is that Hamas refuses to renounce violence. The mind boggles...
2 comments:
As I said, for me Hamas are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians.
I don't really agree with this, it's like saying Fianna Fáil are the legitimate representatives of the Irish people just because they are in government. Hamas did win the election last year, and Ismail Haniyeh is the legitimate prime minster of the Palestinian Authority under the PA's Basic Law, but I don't think any political party can ever claim to represent an entire nation unless it has near unanimous support. As it is, more than half of all Palestinians who took part in the elections voted for parties other than Hamas.
Well, they are certainly more legitimate than they are being given credit for. I suppose that is what I am saying and the point I am making in the context of the article.
I agree with everything you have written in the comment in general.
Fianna Fáil certainly are "the legitimate representatives of the Irish people just because they are in government" in one sense. This statement would be true in the context of a foreign policy discussion in some kind of trade negotiations with other EU domestic ministers or some such. But it is possible to contest their legitimacy on a number of bases. Similarly with Hamas. But in the international context (it being IR, as multi-disciplinary as we may try to be on my little blog), the legitimacy of Hamas is seriously being contested. When one takes the exercise of power into account, this is the case. It is true that on the local level, Hamas are exercising power, and your comment accurately draws attention to a lot of the shortcomings of an absolutist kind of support for Hamas. As the context widens however, Hamas seem to be getting a raw deal relative to Fatah, who I don't think can offer up much that Hamas cannot offer except for a measure of relative support from the likes of Israel, the US etc. And one can argue that this support is contingent on Hamas' existence, and Hamas' successes. If Hamas was not challenging Israel so explicitly, I suggest that Abu Mazen would be less welcome in Washington and Tel Aviv. Perhaps not. The joys of counterfactualisationification.
This is why I reckon that I've problems with Hamas but I'd tend to support them if I were a Palestinian. However, as an Irish atheist sitting typing (stereo typing?) in Dublin, my support will have to be counterfactual in nature. I probably won't convert to Islam or join the Hamas emailing lists. What do you reckon? At least I'd have an excuse not to bother shaving if I was a Muslim.
Your other most recent comment on Hamas on the Dublin school blog gives a good outline of the detail of the election, although I predicted that Hamas would do well even if it's true they didn't themselves expect to win. I'm not overly proud of myself about that wonderful success in telling the future though: I put it down to a stopped clock being right twice a day. The sun even shines on a dog's ass some days, as the man said in White Men Can't Jump. My predictions are usually crap so I'd be foolish to stake my reputation on them.
Rock on. I blame the overly long comment on the fact that the thesis has invaded my brain. I should be in bed.
Goodnight all...
Post a Comment