Well this will ruin your morning.
The exiled political head of the radical Islamic group Hamas said Saturday in Damascus that the group would adopt “a very realistic approach” toward governing the Palestinian Authority and would work with the Fatah president, Mahmoud Abbas, on an acceptable political program.
But the leader, Khaled Meshal, also said that Hamas would not “submit to pressure to recognize Israel, because the occupation is illegitimate and we will not abandon our rights,” nor would it disarm, but work to create a unified Palestinian army.
Not recognizing Israel = really, really bad move.
I can understand the frustration of many Palestinians. They’ve been a people without a country for decades now; many of them were driven from their homes and into refugee camps; they’ve been living with on-and-off access to basics like electricity, running water and medical care; and they have no certainty about their future. Israel has an organized, state-sponsored army with tanks, intelligence and sophisticated weaponry; Palestinians have whatever they can smuggle in. While it would certainly be nice if they would disarm, I can see how, from their view, that seems like an unfair request, and one that will be detrimental to their cause.
I can also see how there appears to be a major imbalance of power between Israel and Palestine, and how the word “terrorist” may seem to be unfairly applied. Why are Palestinians who kill civilians “terrorists,” while Israeli soldiers who kill civilians aren’t? Is it simply state sponsorship that moves an individual away from the “terrorist” categorization?
I don’t think so. Let me first be clear that I take deep issue with many, many of the government-sanctioned actions perpetuated by the Israeli army. Israel goes too far, too often in the name of national security. But a major difference is that Israel isn’t targeting civilian populations for random killings. Civilians are certainly killed in Israeli actions, and that fact shouldn’t be overlooked. But the purpose of suicide bombing has nothing to do with killing enemy combatants, and everything to do with striking fear into the hearts of an entire population, and viewing every individual within that population as an enemy in the fight. There is a moral difference between suicide bombing and state-sanctioned acts of war, and I don’t believe that such a moral difference relies solely on the existance of the state itself.
However, I also believe that a tactic like suicide bombing is inherently an act of desperation. I don’t buy the story that young people are willing to blow themselves up simply for the promise of a Paradise full of virgins. People who feel that their lives have promise will simply not be susceptible to even the most enticing promises, if the realization of those promises is contingent on their bloody death. There are a lot of things going on here, and it’s nowhere near as simple as “Israel is an occupying bully and that’s the problem” or “Palestinians are animals who are willing to kill themselves simply in the name of Jihad” or “The entire region is fucked and we should just give up on them.”
There is no perfect solution, but there are options. The election of Hamas was, in my opinion, a set-back in the path toward finding some of these options, but we’ve gotta work with it — just like Hamas has to work with the fact that Israel exists, it has a right to exist, and it isn’t going to go away.
“It’s a revolutionary situation,” said Yossi Alpher, co-editor of bitterlemons.org, an Israeli-Palestinian journal. “This is the first time that the Muslim Brotherhood or any Islamic group has been elected to run an Arab polity, and there are no real precedents. Are we looking at a hard-core movement that may make some tactical gestures but remains totally committed to destroying Israel and transforming Palestinian society, or are they pragmatists and will change these beliefs?”
Unfortunately, he said, “I think we have to take Hamas at its words and assume that as Islamists, they have some core beliefs that won’t change.”
But didn’t everyone assume that the PLO wouldn’t change, either? Wasn’t Ariel Sharon clear that the best Israeli policy was to use the settlements as a buffer area to protect the nation, and that Israel would never clear them? It takes time, but ideals shift when pragmatism demands it. I obviously don’t feel great about this situation, but I’m retaining a little bit of optimism. But then, there are many things which threaten this optimism:
The 9,000-word Hamas charter, written in 1988, is explicit about the struggle for Palestine as a religious obligation. It describes the land as a “waqf,” or endowment, saying that Hamas “believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.”
In the charter, Hamas describes itself as “a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”
It calls for the elimination of Israel and Jews from Islamic holy land and portrays the Jews as evil, citing an anti-Semitic version of history going back to the Crusades. It also includes a reference to the noted czarist forgery of a plan for world domination, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and condemnation of supposedly Zionist organizations like the Rotary Club and the Masons.
It describes the struggle against the Jews as a religious obligation for every Muslim, saying, “For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.”
That is not promising.
As Mr. Zahar also said, “We do not recognize the Israeli enemy, nor his right to be our neighbor, nor to stay, nor his ownership of any inch of land.”
Nor is any Hamas leader on record as expressing a willingness to disarm or to stop attacks on Israel and Israelis, or to make a distinction between Israeli soldiers and civilians, especially settlers living on occupied land, however defined.
This is a major problem. Obviously. And we are in sticky moral terrority when we’re dealing with a politcal party which views soldiers and civilians as one and the same.
You can call me Pollyanna, but I still really believe that the election of Hamas has far more to do with the corruption and stagnation of Fatah than it does an actual belief in the principles that Hamas espouses. Hamas was able to provide Palestinians with the basic necessities that they weren’t getting anywhere else, and they ran more on a promise of “mani puliti” than Israeli destruction. Others are also optimistic.
Anyway, I obviously haven’t sorted my thoughts out very well. Cross your fingers that it’ll get better. But I’m considering doing a guest blogger project on this issue. If you’d be interested in posting something, email me.