I’ve long claimed that the Hamas (and other Islamic radical groups) are the only real alternative in Arabic countries, because they seem to be less corrupt, and they actually help people. Real help for real people. You can’t beat that, in a dictatorship or in an occupied territory, sliced and diced into little Bantustans. That these radicals take advantage of this head start and offer the kind of education they see fit to the young is just another testimony to the failing states that offer neither social services nor education to the needy. Since the governments from Syria to Morocco show no sign of reform, there’s little need for radical Islamists to change their course of action.
TelePolis writes about Hamas’ victory in Palestine. ¹ I’m not surprised. Let’s hope they have learnt their lessons in the last few years and realized that people are mostly interested in fighting corruption, effective police, just courts, good education, and peace. They want their country back, but they don’t want rocket launchers and terrorists in charge of their government.
If Hamas manages to aggressively defend the rights of Palestinians, while actually building a working infrastructure, then I wish them the best of luck. The governments and NGOs threatening the new government with sanctions if it includes Hamas are ill advised: They helped a corrupt Palestinian government, overlooked all of Israel’s dirty tricks, and now they want to sabotage the democratically elected government?
As Uri Avnery said, “Israel must negotiate with whatever Palestinian leadership is elected by the Palestinian people. As in every conflict throughout history, one does not elect the leadership of the opponent - first, because the opponent will not accept this, and, just as importantly, because an agreement made with such a leadership will not hold.” (Mit Hamas reden!, To Talk With Hamas).
The ElectronicIntifada also wrote an article explaining the Hamas victory. ² Essentially, they say that it is not “merely about the oft-cited social welfare network it oversees.” (Which is basically what I claimed.) Fortunately, Toufic Haddad explains and offers two additional arguments:
1. Palestinians rejected that they had to be a “partner to peace”; that they were the ones who had to prove that they were not the terrorists; and that “Israeli security and self-defense” was a legitimate premise in the peace process, necessitating all of Israel’s subsequent actions.
2. Hamas preserved and implemented at times, the Palestinian right to resist.
Based on this, Toufic Haddad concludes: “In fact, it is precisely through the consolidation of these first two criteria that Hamas’ social welfare networks become transformed from mere charity networks, into instruments for political mobilization. Hamas’ victory also exemplified that it is first and foremost the responsibility of the political party to serve its people and not the other way around.”
I agree with this analysis. Toufic Haddad also shares my point of view that the existing alternatives failed to provide any realistic suggestion for a solution to the problem: “At the same time, it must be noted that Hamas’ victory is equally as much a failure for the Palestinian Left, and other secular forces to articulate and organize an attractive alternative.”
#Israel