Why did Palestinians elect Hamas if most view them as a militant organisation?

This is a common trait in a state of conflict where people naturally choose the hard-lined leader in order to protect their people with strength and courage against an external threat, rather than with their PhDs in diplomacy.

We saw the same scenario with the rise of a General who became Prime Minister in Ariel Sharon, or Binyamin Netanyahu who was part of the General forces unit and a captain, and even Menachim Begin who was part of the Irgun terrorist group that bombed several British buildings and traded with illegal weaponry.

This is even evident between two military leaders who took separate paths in their methods of leadership regarding the zealous persona of Gamal Abdel-Nasser who was popular in Egypt because he promoted protection against the Zionist invasion, rather than the more diplomatic approach to peace in Anwar Sadat, who subsequently was assassinated for his attempts at peace. This similarity can also be seen in Israel when Yitzhak Rabin was also assassinated for his attempts at peace in a heightened time of conflict.

This stems from the propaganda created for warfare. The classic situation where newspapers and radios promote the perception of "near-annihilation" as troops battle to defend their country's existence. While a people face the depressing realities of daily bombardment, they need a hero to turn to in order to give them hope of victory.
In the first world countries today, we witness people naturally inclined to seek justice in internal affairs rather than in warfare against an external entity. This is especially common amongst the youth who have lived all their lives in a world without any direct imminent threat from external entities, as was the case before their forefathers fought to win their own independence.

Gaza is no different. Rather than the people seeking a government that can provide them financial stability, economic opportunities, and social justice, they believe that none of this can be achieved with the constant humiliation of occupation and a disruption of normality with ongoing checkpoints and land confiscations in areas that were replaced with settlements, as was the case before the seige began in Gaza in 2006. With absence of peace in their everyday lives and the uncertainty of their future, those who become popular were the highest bidders for security.

Hamas' militant approach is the strongest and most secure option for the people of Gaza because no one else can provide them with the protection they need. It is unfortunate that since they have taken office their militant approach has been like punching the apartheid wall with their bare fists; achieving nothing but reactions from those who imposed the blockade around the Strip, rather than a stable solution for the people's livelihoods. These reactions by the occupying powers continually result in civilian casualties even after democracy was implemented in the region with Hamas. That particular democracy was shunned, and was still frowned upon even after Hamas were willing to accept a truce with Israel based on the pre-67 borders in the same year they were elected into office.

What resulted from the elections that birthed Hamas' political careers was evidence that violence ultimately spawns violence, just as the Gaza siege in 2008/2009 will undoubtedly bring up another child who witnessed brutality with the horrific scenes of burned bodies and the pools of blood. Those scenes could only traumatize a collective group of youth that will grow up in a violent environment and a vengeful disposition.

Israel's mistake in dealing with the situation of trying to remove Hamas has not yet been realised. Rather than a collective punishment imposed on Gaza because the people elected the "wrong leaders", the withdrawal of violence will actually have a positive effect, and it will naturally dissolve support in such reactionary groups amongst popular Palestinian opinion.

Diplomacy or Militancy? That is the Question

A UN bid for the state of Palestine has been greatly debated with a significant split in opinions amongst Arabs regarding whether or not there is an advantage to Palestinian statehood.

Amongst many critics is the claim that a statehood based on the 1949 Armistice Agreement or "pre-67 borders" removes any legitimate claims for the Right of Return of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees currently residing on the outskirts of historic Palestine, and in countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

Naturally this would be a great advantage for Israel. So why is Israel afraid of a UN application if the Palestinians believe it removes legitimate claims for a large percentage of Palestinians who were invaded and violently displaced from their homes? Wouldn't removing responsibility for the refugee problem be exactly what the Zionist movement wants?

Currently Israel claims that Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) is in fact "disputed" territory rather than "occupied" territory. By this definition, it would allow them to justify land annexation which from Israel's perspective, is by de facto "uncharted". This ultimately denies them seeing the reality, that it is in fact inhabited by the indigenous population of Arabs who have lived there for centuries.

The implication is extended further by proclaiming that there isn't any official recognition of West Bank borders because the Armistice Agreement was only just a truce, and in effect is not recognised by International Law. However there is one problem with this argument. Such a claim effectively defines Israel as a state without official border lines either, and only just an official state body.

Abbas himself has acknowledged that the final agreements for border negotiations cannot be done in the UN, so a simple bid for "official recognition" would suffice for the PA's cause with noteworthy mention that it should be based on the pre-67 borders and not defined by the borders. This creates a dilemma for Israel whereby having two recognised states as UN members with undetermined borders would result in a level playing field, and negotiations could resume between two official state bodies for any border lines.

That is completely outside Israel's comfort zone, especially when the dynamics of the region would significantly shift further away from the status quo that is sitting in their favour. That, along with the mounting pressures of international isolation could only mean political disaster for the state that already declared independence unilaterally in 1948.

On the flip side, there are those amongst the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, who refuse to believe in the legitimacy of the UN altogether because of the irony it demonstrates towards democracy from an organisation that fundamentally provides five permanent members with the ultimate power to overrule and destroy a resolution with a veto if they wish to do so.

However this argument is also flawed. Denouncing such an organisation plays a dangerous game which removes any argument proclaiming that Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank are indeed illegal, especially since they are defined as illegal by International Law based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is in fact endorsed by the United Nations.

There are those who also refuse to believe Israel exists altogether, and that denies the reality of confronting a very real opponent on any level. This forces the situation into a more militant scenario and as we have seen in previous attempts by Fatah's rivals Hamas, its almost like punching the Apartheid Wall with their own bare hands. Hamas have been popularly condemned for causing more harm than good to their people without any viable solution to end their plight.

While Fatah have also been condemned for the atrocities against the people of Gaza after the first and only democratic elections in the Strip, they have also been accused of rubbing shoulders with the West. This opinion has slightly changed amongst some as they heard first-hand Abbas' firm stance in front of the entire world against the diplomatic pressures made by the nations who have supported Fatah as a puppet regime. It might not have won their hearts completely, especially with memories of the betrayal exposed in the Palestinian Papers, however the evident defiance seems to have struck a chord.

With Fatah's approach through diplomacy to defy the powers that occupy the Palestinian people, and Hamas' approach through militancy to defy the powers that occupy the Palestinian people, there doesn't seem to be any other suggestions made by the critics except to play the waiting game for emerging powers in the region, which incidentally does not guarantee an honest alliance of any kind. The support of BDS movements can only provide a means to promote a general disapproval, however there are still no positive steps towards other forms of reform, regardless of whether it is to achieve a one-state or two-state solution.

A UN bid proves to be a rare political victory for Palestinians regardless of a result. A successful bid hastens the demise of legitimacy of Fatah and Hamas, who both lack the resolve to unify their establishments and their people, which in turn forces a hand for elections to take place for the official state body of Palestine; while a veto hastens the political isolation of the United States and Israel throughout the world, and especially in the EU where they have had stark negative responses for the earlier veto on halting illegal settlement activities in February. Saudi Arabia have also threatened to sanction the United States following the expected veto.

Regardless of the pros and cons of a UN bid and its effectiveness, the people must choose from a limited number of options to help achieve any kind of outcome: militancy, diplomacy or the waiting game in the hopes that some other external force tilts the balance of power in their favour before Israel annexes the entire region. This could create a limbo for the entire Palestinian population if we wait too long.

The similitude of the Two-State Solution and the Treaty of Hudaibiya

Many Palestinians are too anxious with regards to their right of return that they believe jumping into a bid for the state of Palestine would be a political disaster. Longer term advantages, however, would significantly benefit the Palestinian cause, just as patience was shown during the early years of the Muslim refugees that were displaced from their homes in Mecca and hunted down. There is a striking similarity between the UN bid and the truce that was agreed upon by the Muslims and the Pagan Arabs who tried to eradicate them.

According to the Treaty of Hudaibiya, a truce was declared between the Muslims and the tribe of Quraish for ten years. If any other tribe wished to enter into a treaty with the Muslims it could do so, and whoever wished to enter into a treaty with the Quraish was likewise free to do so. If any one from the Quraish came to the Muslims and was converted to Islam he was to be returned to the Quraish. On the other hand, if a Muslim sought refuge with the Quraish, he was not to be delivered to the Muslims. It was further stipulated that the Muslims would withdraw that year without performing the Hajj in Mecca, but they would be free to perform the Hajj the following year when they could stay in Mecca for only three days before being removed again.

The truce was obviously very one sided and the pact was significantly in favor of the Quraish, so most of the Muslims were extremely critical of these terms. Umar gave expression of his dissatisfaction with the terms of the treaty, but Muhammad (SAW) assured him to put faith in the truce.

Seventeen years prior to this truce, Quraish had been waging a war against the Muslims with their aim to crush Islam. Therefore the treaty of Hudaibiya, when Quraish agreed to the truce for a period of ten years, amounted to a confession of their failure.

By this treaty both the Muslims and Quraish could have allies from amongst the tribes surrounding them. This was a subtle point fraught with grave consequences. The fact that the Muslims were able to travel freely to forge alliances without fear of being attacked by their enemies, meant that they were more advantageous over the Pagan tribe. And that is exactly what they did. As things took shape, it was such alliances that paved the way for the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims without a single drop of blood spilled.

In this comparison, we can also conclude that the same technique can be implemented with regards to the current volatile situation for the Palestinians where at any given time their lives can be taken by a flyover or a home demolition. The more time they can spend "regrouping" by forging strong alliances amongst the free people of Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Jordan whilst a truce is in play, the stronger the Arabs will be united in demanding their right of return regardless of how many settlements are built today, and especially when considering that much larger empires were dismantled in the history of mankind.

Remembering that Jerusalem was brutally occupied by the crusaders for almost 100 years until Salahudeen was successful in giving the land back to the people it was stolen from, we can be reassured that Zionism's brutal occupation of the region for only 63 years will not be an exception. Forcing a situation in the region against its natural demographic has never proven to be a sustainable solution for any ruling power.

Considering a "set-back" by declaring the state of Palestine at the UN assembly and accepting a two-state solution doesn't necessarily mean defeat. It can only provide, at the very least, a legitimacy for the Arab world to take a stronger stance in supporting Palestinians in years to come.

Sources: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/19_ali_bin_talib.htm

History of Jews in the Arab world

Currently there are numerous misconceptions surrounding Jewish refugees who were allegedly caused by Arab nations during the years that the state of Israel was established. The notion of collective punishment and discrimination under Arab rule has widely been accepted as a fact based on interpretations from verbal accounts on the historic events surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict. History paints a different picture of those accusations when the complete story is put into perspective.

Since the beginning of the British frontier in the Middle East, not only was Palestine a British colony following the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, but the Empire had also controlled Egypt since conquering the French in 1882, as well as Sudan in 1899 and Yemen as early as 1839. The land that was once borderless under Islamic rule was slowly being sliced up and became provinces under the British Commonwealth.

At the outbreak of World War I, an emerging Zionist movement became prominant throughout Europe and was thriving economically. Many of the Jews of Europe excelled in trade, usury and public relations.

Two of its significant leaders, Dr Weizmann and Baron Rothschild, helped fund Britain’s victory in their European campaign during the Great War. They had only one request in return for the favour they bestowed on the Commonwealth for its victory, and that transpired in the form of the historic Balfour Declaration which was written to Rothschild in order to hand over one of the regions in the Middle East to establish a Jewish-only state.

This declaration was in direct contradiction to the promise given to Arabs to play a significant part in Britain's establishment of monarch-lead nations following their help in dismantling the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI.

Since the Kingdom of Egypt was part of the British Commonwealth prior to this, it was already an open gateway to the Middle East for the Jewish community before they could claim a land of their own. Egypt subsequently made exemptions to rulings over compulsory visas in favour of Jewish immigrants. Naturally, many Jews flocked to this hub of multiculturalism across the Mediterranean from their origins in Europe. Many Egyptians today tell the tale of Jewish neighbours who had become friends over the years with many cultural exchanges including family recipes and traditions. Egypt provided a safe haven for many Jews who comprised of Sephardi Jews (migrating from Morocco and other Arab countries), Ashkenazim Jews (predominantly from Eastern Europe and those from pre-WWII), Jews from southern Europe, and the native Jews who had already existed in Egypt for centuries (namely the Karaites and Rabbanites) and who were previously living under the laws of the Islamic province of Egypt.

Regarding the lifestyle of these indigenous Jews before British rule, the Islamic governor of Egypt had ordered that others could not interfere with their way of life nor in their celebrated holidays. They were considered Dhimmis or "protected subjects". Their protection came with the precondition that a jizya or "poll tax" must be paid to provide security, build roads, help fund places of worship and other benefits that ultimately influenced fundamental practices of modern governance today with modern tax. While Muslims did not pay jizya, they were obligated to pay zakat, which is part of the tenants of their religious obligations. Obviously since Dhimmis were not required to perform one of the obligatory pillars of Islam, another method of taxation was required of them in society.

In the Muslim world, Jews also obtained high social positions such as doctors, clerks, tax collectors, and even received special positions in the Egyptian courts as early as the 9th century. There are historians today that prefer to consider these minority groups "second-class citizens" simply because they were excused from Muslim duties and the Shari'a Law, yet they were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation, and were given rights to maintain their own religious rites and freedoms. Incidentally this provided more flexibility and allowances than what is currently provided in Western society today for those who wish to establish their own religious laws within sub-communities for minorities.

Further to this, under British occupation treatment towards Jews was no different. The Jewish community which had otherwise been persecuted abroad was embraced by Egyptians citizens. Some Jews during British rule even had their entries at the royal court and were able to contribute to the nation's public transport, cotton industry, sugar refinery, banking, department stores, real-estate developments, agriculture, as well as having jobs as accountants, shopkeepers, teachers, and merchants. They had just as much opportunity to fulfil a successful life as any other Egyptian citizen at the time.

Following the popular uprising against British rule in 1919, Britain ended the protectorate in 1922 and the Kingdom of Egypt became nominally independent, although still dependent on Britain financially. This did not phase Jewish migrants.

In 1932 and 1933 the Egyptian government conducted a campaign offering Egyptian citizenship to any resident of Egyptian territory who wanted it. Some Egyptian Jews were among those who took advantage of the offer and became Egyptian citizens, while others chose to remain stateless, though it became more difficult for stateless residents to become citizens later on.

Due to the end of capitulations between Egypt and European countries in 1937, which shielded foreign nationals from the law of the land, and due to high unemployment in Egypt which increased dramatically when many businesses closed after WWII, these foreign nationals, including many Jews, found it difficult to maintain jobs especially because they did not have Egyptian citizenship.

Jewish migration from Europe was growing during WWII and it didn't take long before the Nazis followed them. Amongst many other things, one of the main reasons why Hitler attempted to conquer Egypt was an attempt to eliminate the Jews from Egypt.

These two critical issues created the first wave of Jewish emigration. As a result, they fled based on their own fear and insecurity. But while an attempted eradication of Jews in Egypt was unsuccessful, many Jews still remained in Egypt; especially the higher class citizens that had much of their wealth invested in the country.

After the Nazis failed, the Kingdom continued to maintain its own laws. Some of the Ottoman systems that still existed were sustained by the Egyptian monarchy. At the time, Ottoman systems maintained legal protection for non-Muslim minorities which obviously included the autonomous Jewish communities. Any crimes committed against these Jews were not represented by the Kingdom of Egypt, and were rather considered criminal acts of racism. Although demonstrations and riots broke out following the commemoration of the Balfour declaration with some Egyptians lashing out violently against all who supported the letter to Rothschild, these protests consequently subsided with increased security by the Egyptian government to provide guards to protect the Jewish Quarter.

The Egyptian Kingdom's protection was maintained even after the independence of the state of Israel regardless of the fact that war was declared against the Zionists who took Palestinian territory unilaterally.

Egyptian rulers implemented martial law and stamped down their authority on any Zionist supporters living in Egypt as they were officially declared enemies of the state following the invasion of Palestine. Particular emphasis on "Zionist supporters" rather than Jews themselves was made because it was the growing secular movement with it's intention to take Arab land that was a threat to the nation. This law was not exclusive to Zionists however, as many Egyptians were arrested for violence within a nation that suddenly became volatile. The Muslim Brotherhood became outlawed and so were many other opposition organisations. Egypt was completely alienated due to being in a state of war.

Some Jews (primarily Ashkenazim Jews) were extremely fearful of the animosity of the war between Israel and the Arab world that they decided to migrate to the newly formed state especially because Zionist campaigns encouraged them to run to the hills and take land while it was "there for the taking". This is in contrast to what many people describe as an "exodus" in 1948, especially when the Jews themselves describe this ritual as the spiritual "aliyah" or ascension as was the Jewish aspiration since the Babylonian exile.

Egypt's status changed over the next few years when a military coup overthrew the monarchy in 1952 for failure to protect their neighbours from the humiliating defeat against the Zionist movement's invasion. Other reasons for the coup also included political corruption due to remnants of British influence which had helped form the Zionist state.

The state of Egypt was then transformed into a military ruling nation where emergency laws were enforced. One of the most significant changes due to this law was the deportation of those who lived in Egypt without visas or any other kind of evidence to prove Egyptian citizenship. This wasn't a direct attack on Jews, especially since British and French supporters were primarily considered enemies of the state for their support in the attempted invasion of 1956 by France, Britain and Israel, and so were subsequently expelled from Egypt.

Despite these expulsions, there were still Jews who claimed they were still making a good living from their growing businesses even up until the late 1960's and were reluctant to leave the country empty-handed. They were able to stay because they had citizenship and were not supporters of the enemies of state.

Egypt was drastically changed from having open borders to being in a state of security. This behaviour is common throughout the world today and is mirrored in Western countries such as the US with the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security in response to the September 11 attacks in 2001.

This harsh environment regarding the changes in Egyptian policies were mainly due to the undeniable and overwhelming fear that resulted from the establishment of Israel because the Zionist state posed a very imminent threat for a potential expansion beyond Egypt's borders, as it ultimately did in 1967.

Thus military rule created instability and political uncertainty in Egypt, even when considering the significant shifts in alliances from the Soviet Union to the US and up until the days of Mubarak's downfall. Many Jews actually decided to leave Egypt voluntarily, pre-empting repercussions from the political instability. This is no different than the Egyptian citizens who also fled from their own homeland and became migrants in countries across the world including the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, particularly after the 1967 invasion. These Egyptian migrants were not considered refugees, just as the Jews were not. They fled for much the same reasons, and were considered migrants because applications were never made for refugee status with the UN. Jews either migrated to the United States, France and Australia or had answered to the Israeli call to establish settlements on Palestinian soil.

Currently, some Jews claim that racial discrimination against the few remaining Jews in Egypt still exist today especially because of an isolated incident recently regarding the prevention of a marriage between an Egyptian and a Jew. The reality is that even amongst Jewish sects there are significant cultural differences. The Karaite Jews (followers of the Torah) and the Rabbanite Jews (followers of the Talmud) have their own separate synagogues and their own separate schools, and although they both recognise each other as the indigenous Jews of Egypt who lived there for centuries, mixed marriages were an issue for their cultural traditions, let alone cultural differences between Sephardi Jews from Spain, or the Ashkenazim from Eastern Europe.

Some also claim that discrimination against Jews existed because they were denied the right to vote in elections, however this claim does not take into consideration the fact that all of Egypt including its citizens were denied the right to vote in any national election that existed ever since military rule took control of the country, with the staged formalities of elections to try and show Egypt's "democracy".

There has been a common trend amongst the Jewish Diaspora to isolate the sufferings of Jewish people during the time of war so that their own stories would be vindicated by excluding stories of suffering from the general population in the region as a result of the cruelties of war.

Incidentally this victimisation is also used with the constant reminders of genocide that occurred as a result of the holocaust during WWII while failing to describe the many tens of thousands of men, women and children who also suffered collectively from the war. Somehow the words "holocaust" and "exodus" have only been attributed to the Jewish people and astonishingly these words are not accepted nor tolerated to be used in conjunction with any other suffering people as a result of collective punishment in warfare.

Its time that we started sympathizing for humanity collectively when a population suffers at the hands of invasions and political and economic instabilities throughout the world. This ongoing story of suffering is not exclusively kept for the Jews.

The Israeli deception

In light of a recent campaign by Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon, to try and justify the settlement expansions in the West Bank by considering the region "disputed" rather than "illegally occupied", there is one important point to note on his failure to mention the Oslo Accords of 1993 and the official agreement to recognize a Palestinian state around the 1967 borders.

This deception runs deep in Netanyahu's government.

Previously, Netanyahu himself has arrogantly described how his own lies were successful in removing relevance to this peace treaty, and how easily swayed the United States are into falling for his trickery.



The point here is that the current Israeli establishment works to find loop-holes in peace agreements made with the Palestinians to deny the rights of Arab legitimacy in the region. Being technically correct based on flaws or not, the fact that peace talks with the Palestinian Authority are not in good faith, in effect denies the state of Israel from being considered a "beacon of peace and hope" in the Middle East. Rather it is one of the causes of violence and oppression because of this deception.

How then can one question the Palestinians for working on establishing a sovereign state of Palestine unilaterally in front of the United Nations when there is evidence to suggest that they would have less of a chance with Israel's lack of cooperation?