 Letters from Palestine Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, outside his house at the al-Shati refugee camp, in Gaza City, Thursday, Jan. 26. (AP Photo / Hatem Moussa) The Hamas Platform Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, ran their campaign with a clear platform. All of their candidates articulated a vision for Palestine and for Palestinians that was consistent, compelling and comprehensive: The Context of the Elections The elections, which were delayed for years, occurred within the context of an ongoing and progressive deterioration of the quality of life for Palestinians, a sub-total decay of civil infrastructures, raising unemployment and under employment, increases in corruption within the Palestinian Authority, and a staggering increase in the breath and depth of the illegal Israeli occupation—targeted assassinations, home demolitions, check points, increases in settlements, creation of the Apartheid Wall, more isolation of Palestinian communities from each other, land confiscations, etc. From the time of the return of the PLO to Palestine in 1993 and the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the subsequent Oslo Agreement and Road Map efforts to promote peace, Palestinians witnessed a dramatic decline in their well being and economic viability and a significant increase in the brutal effects of occupation. The PA was increasingly being perceived as not resisting US efforts to control and dominate the Arab World and Middle East and for acting as a surrogate for Israeli interests. This perception was not helped by the level of corruption within the PA and their feckless attempts to confront US control and domination in Palestinian affairs and Israeli expansionism on the ground. The ruling Fatah Party (the political arm of the PA) could not articulate a vision during the elections that was believable or different from the status quo. Palestinians were confronted with two choices—accepting the status quo or rejecting the status quo. In this regard the election results may not be so surprising.
Khaled Mashaal, a leader of Hamas, living in exile in Syria, contacted Abbas to discuss the election results relative to forming a coalition government. "He stressed Hamas insists on a partnership with all the Palestinian factions, especially our brothers in Fatah" - Hamas Website The Election It is important to note that the majority of Palestinians were in fact excluded from voting. There are over 10 million Palestinians worldwide and the majority are in the Diaspora. Only Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank were able to vote and the results must be understood within the context of our history of forced displacement, exile, and dislocation from our land. About 4 million Palestinians live in Gaza and the West Bank (1.5 and 2.5 million respectively). Of the about 1.34 million registered voters, 77.69% participated in the elections. This is a staggering percentage for democratic elections and ranks among the highest turnouts anywhere in the world. Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in 2004. There were two different kinds of seats in the Palestine Legislative Council (PLC) that were up for election—National seats (66 total) and regional/local seats (66 total), with a total of 132 seats in the PLC. Hamas won a total of 74 seats (29 national and 45 regional). Fatah won 45 seats (28 national and 17 regional). The remainder of seats went to smaller parties including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (3 seats), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine People’s Party (2 seats), Al-Mubadara (Mustafa Barghouti’s Party, 2 seats), and the Third Wave Party (Hanan Ashrawi’s Party, 2 seats). Winners and Losers Here is a brief list of winners and losers in the election of Hamas to a majority in the PLC. Losers: 2. Israeli occupation. The next biggest loser is the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Palestinians. The ongoing Israeli policies of creating facts on the ground (Apartheid Walls and settlements) and extending the occupation (home demolitions, land confiscation, targeted assassinations, torture, etc) will no longer be accepted within a perverse sham of peace negotiations. Every Palestinian is against occupation, but some Palestinians had accepted forms of occupation as a necessary stage in the process of coming to a peaceful solution to the occupation. This strategy has been completely rejected. Colonizers and occupiers never renounce their aims and goals by dialogue with their slaves. The Israeli policy of extending the occupation so that Palestinians will agree to be occupied has been rejected. 3. The Palestinian Authority and the ruling Fatah Party. The victory of Hamas was a rejection of the status quo, of the PA and Fatah since 1993, and the Oslo agreement: enough is enough. A vote for Hamas was also a vote against the PA, against Fatah as a political party, and against the policies of normalized engagement with the government of Israel while being occupied. In some ways the reasons for the results of the election are not that complicated: the PA did not deliver on honoring the national aspirations of Palestinians. As discussed above, the PA was widely perceived as a surrogate for American and Israeli political and economic interests. Winners 1. Palestinians, in Palestine and in the Diaspora. The clear winners in the election are Palestinians, in Palestine and in the Diaspora. The historical unfolding of Palestinian national liberation was stymied and inhibited by the Oslo agreement and the subsequent emergence of the Palestinian Authority. The election of Hamas was a vote for the re-energizing of the Palestinian national consensus that commits all Palestinians, irrespective of political and religious affiliation, to fulfilling the goal of self-determination, national liberation and the right of return. We can now expect more participation of the Palestinian Diaspora to participate in this consensus building because Palestinians are an undivided people, despite the majority living in exile. The period of time since Oslo led to an erosion of these aspirations and the PA was no longer perceived as the guardian of Palestinian self-determination. Of course the primary responsibility for this sorry state should fall squarely on the shoulders of Israel and the occupation. Unfortunately, the PA strategically believed that it could further the aims of Palestinian self-determination by working collaboratively with the governments of Israel and the US—a mistake that many national liberation movements have made. A vote for Hamas was widely seen as a vote of no confidence in the PA and its strategy to work within the confines of accepting American-Israeli pre-conditions on how Palestinian freedom and self-determination would be framed-- that is, framed by Oslo, Camp David, and the acceptance of occupation. 2. Hamas, as a Political Force. Another clear winner in the elections is Hamas. We should, however, be very clear about the meaning of this phrase. The Hamas victory does not mean that Hamas as a resistance movement won, rather Hamas as a political movement won. Hamas is a very complex entity with many different aspects to it—religious, political, military, social, etc. What will frame and organize how Hamas proceeds with its mandate to govern will be primarily a discourse of Palestinian national liberation and civil society building. Of course some members of Hamas will wish for an Islamic State. For now, in the current context, what will organize the unfolding of this period of Hamas rule will be rebuilding civil society, ending corruption in government, clarity of vision that occupation is unacceptable and must end, improving the daily lives of Palestinians, and a foreign policy that rejects normalization with anyone that considers occupation acceptable. 3. The People of the Arab World. Another big winner in this election are the people of the Arab World, the so-called “Arab Street”. The analysis of the difficulties and problems of the PA can be easily transferred to other Arab regimes and governments. The election of Hamas and its political platform will presage an emergence of the biggest nightmare for American-Israeli globalized exploits---a rejection of puppet governments, a rejection of American dominance and influence in the region, and a rejection neo-liberal economic policies that seek to control and dominate the people and resources of the Arab World and beyond. The election results in Palestine may prefigure what will happen if democracy is able to take hold in the Arab World. Iraqis are especially interested in this election because as the occupation of Iraq comes to an end, the people of Iraq will insist on an election not under occupation and the results of that election will be, I believe, no different that what we witnessed in Palestine. The election of Hamas may be one of the biggest assaults to neo-liberal forces to date. Washington and Tel Aviv are still unable to fathom this and will try to isolate Hamas. This, of course, will backfire and only strengthen Hamas and the future of democratic reform in the Arab World. 4. Anti-neo liberal forces all over the World. From Latin America to South-East Asia, to Africa and the Arab World, the election of Hamas has only strengthened the growing mass revolt against neo-liberal polices that seek to control and dominate people and resources economically, politically and militarily. The recent elections in Bolivia and Haiti are exemplary in this respect-- if people are afforded the opportunity to freely speak and vote (relatively of course) the results will reflect the rejection of neo-liberal policies. Looking forward to Iraq, the Philippines and the rest of Latin America, it is clear the elections in Palestine and the victory of Hamas will only embolden and empower people to rise up against the slavery brought to their countries by Free Trade Agreements, NGO’s, the IMF and World Bank, and Globalization. Although it is too early to say definitively what will become of the Hamas victory, it is safe to say that this represents a dramatic shift in the geo-political landscape in the Arab and Muslim world and beyond. What happened in Palestine was an example of Arab democracy, not American democracy. It is so ironic that a people under occupation, the Palestinians, are going to be the progenitors of a mass political uprising in the world and will be in the vanguard of resistance to American neo-liberal policies. Only time will tell what will become of these elections, but as an important historical moment, we are likely to look back at this time as one of the most definitive revolutionary moments of our time. PS: A Demand to the Left in Europe and the US Finally, this should also be a wake up call to left and progressive forces in the US and Europe who are afraid to acknowledge the election results in Palestine because of their confusion and internalized anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism. Standing on the sidelines and remaining silent about these elections or hiding behind the mantle of free speech when virulent hate speech against Arabs and Muslims is being encouraged and fomented will lead you to a kind of intellectual and moral myopia and weak-kneed political analysis. Remaining silent or using the faux argument of free speech in defense of western liberalism is actually promoting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments and actions. This is an opportunity to confront the specter of neo-liberal racism. We are in a time when clear principled analyses and convictions are essential. There is no room for ambiguity or silence on these issues and events (the lections in Palestine, anti-Muslim cartoons, the port issue, etc). Oppressed people all over the world have the right to resist domination and occupation. Occupation is wrong. Racism is wrong. Slavery is wrong. Oppressed communities of color are struggling to overcome the yoke of neo-liberal occupations and it is our obligation to support them. Silence is complicity. © Copyright 2006 by AxisofLogic.com
Dr. Ghannam is an Axis of Logic columnist. His writings on Axis of Logic can be found in the right-column, |
The recent victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections has sent shock waves throughout the world. Everyone, including Hamas, was surprised by the victory and the magnitude of the results—by all standards, it was a landslide. It is too early to unambiguously determine what the implications will be and any analysis that claims to know is misguided. It will take decades to fully comprehend the magnitude of this geo-political assault on American neo-liberal policies and Israeli colonial occupation. Here is what we know so far. 
1. American hegemony and neo-liberal aspirations in the Middle East and Arab World. Clearly the biggest loser was US foreign policy in the Middle East and Arab World, specifically the current incarnation in the Bush Agenda (there is no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans in this area). This was a huge affront to American interference and dominance in Palestine and the region. The entire Arab World and Middle East are now looking to Palestine as an indication of what can happen if genuine democratic elections are held. (Of course the Palestinian election results must also be see in light of the obvious fact of occurring under occupation). The election was a resounding no-confidence vote about the Road-Map, Oslo, and attempts to force Palestinians to accept the faux peace that was being enacted by the PA and the governments of Israel and the US. After the elections politicians, like Senator Diane Feinstein, are saying that maybe certain people (aka “Arabs”) may not yet be ready for democracy. This form of virulent racism is just a cover for US policy makers who are anxious about what will happen in the Arab World and Middle East if genuine democratic elections are promoted. What will happen, and this is almost a certainty, is that governments will be elected that will reject American neo-liberal intervention and policies. What will emerge will be a new formation of Pan-Arab Nationalism and cohesion and this is one of the biggest threats to US foreign policy in the region.