That is certainly one explanation for the setback suffered by Fatah, the oldest Palestinian national movement, founded in 1968 by Yasser Arafat. The Palestinians were bitterly disillusioned with the Oslo Accords, which did not stop Israel's occupation from swelling and making their lives even more wretched than before. They were also disgusted with the blatant corruption of the Fatah leadership, and lost patience with it after Arafat died. But the swing to Hamas was not driven only by negative feelings - Hamas offered what Fatah did not, namely, social support in the form of clinics, schools and kindergartens, assistance to widows and orphans. In fact, Hamas' main activities have always taken the form of social services, as well as religious devotion, and only a small part of the organisation engaged in the military fight against Israel. Clearly the religious revival, currently sweeping across the Muslim world, played a part in Hamas' success, but many secular-minded Palestinians, even some Christians, also voted for it and helped to give it the parliamentary majority no-one had foreseen.

The reactions in Israel and in most of the Western world have been predictable - shock, horror! A party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power by democratic means. That movement, banned in Egypt for decades (only recently allowed a small opening in the general elections over there), and bloodily suppressed in Syria by the late Hafez Assad, will now form the legitimate government of the Palestinian proto-state. In reality, behind the facade of outrage, the Israeli leadership is pleased with the outcome. Once again it can protest that there is no partner for the 'peace process', and proceed with its well-laid schemes to expand and consolidate the occupation in the West Bank, complete the great wall, and keep up the systematic assassination of Palestinian militants - indeed, two members of Islamic Jihad were killed immediately after the elections. Moreover, the Western governments - which is all that interests the Israelis - are making no objection, as Hamas has been ineradicably tarred with the label 'Muslim fundamentalists', which might as well equal 'devil worshippers' as far as the mainstream Western media and public are concerned.

Germany's new Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who happened to be visiting Israel when Hamas claimed victory, at once called upon it to recognize Israel's 'right to exist' and to renounce violence. Similar demands were voiced by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the British government, and various spokesmen for the European Union. These were actually the moderate ones - others, such as President Bush, declared categorically that Hamas could not expect any support, financial or political, from the US, because the US does not do business with terrorists. Since none of these governments has ever warned Israel to desist from assassinating Palestinians, blowing up houses, seizing lands for settlements and building the separation wall - among other clearly illegal activities - you could not but wonder at this chorus of demands made on the victim, rather than on the aggressor.

Here it might be useful to look back on the history of Hamas. When the first Palestinian uprising broke out in 1997, the then Israeli defence minister Yitzhak Rabin quietly encouraged the establishment of a Muslim organisation, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, in the hope that it would act as a counter-weight to Yasser Arafat's Fatah militants. At that time Hamas was supported by no more than 15% of the Palestinian population. To Israel's dismay, the new Islamic group did not fight the secular Fatah, but turned against Israel. In December 1992, realising he'd made a major mistake, Rabin, by then the Prime Minister, deported 400 Hamas activists to southern Lebanon. But instead of perishing on the snowy hillside, they went on to be trained by Hizbollah explosive experts, and later returned to Gaza and the West Bank, all set to carry out terror attacks. In 1994, after Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish settler, massacred 29 Muslim worshippers in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, Hamas started its campaign of suicide bombings. Israel began to hunt down the organisation's activists, and in 1997 Mossad agents attempted, and failed, to poison Hamas' leader Khaled Mashaal in Amman.
But the more Hamas activists Israel killed, the more attacks were carried out inside Israel, and thousands of young Palestinians joined the organisation. Arguing that the Palestinian Authority was not doing enough to stop these attacks, Israel undermined the Authority's institutions and placed Yasser Arafat under tight siege. The longer the intifada continued, the stronger Hamas became. The assassination of the movement's spiritual leader, the blind paraplegic Sheikh Yassin, in 2004, probably also enhanced its standing and membership. Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which had long been advocated by the military brass, was interpreted by most Palestinians as a Hamas victory. They expressed their appreciation with their votes.
 
The financial squeeze began immediately, with Israel freezing the transfer of funds to the Palestinian Authority, funds which Israel collects for it in the form of customs duties and VAT, and from which it deducts the cost of electricity and other services it provides to the occupied territories. While the Palestinian Authority has been receiving some funds from the Arab states, it has counted on the regular disbursements from Israel to pay its employees, some 150,000 of them. The money is, strictly speaking, Palestinian, but the Israelis have their hand on the spigot and can shut it off at will. At the same time, the European Union is dithering whether to continue to help the Authority under the Hamas government, or make it conditional on the two loudly-touted demands - recognise Israel and renounce violence.

At the same time the Israeli political scene is in greater disarray than it has been for many years. The new party Kadima, launched by Ariel Sharon just a little while before he was felled by a stroke, was widely expected to melt away in the absence of its overpowering founder. To general surprise, the polls show that it is holding its own, even increasing in strength, under the much less charismatic leadership of Ehud Olmert, veteran Likud politico, former mayor of Jerusalem. The right-wing party Likud, led by the widely disliked Binyamin Netanyahu, seems to be shrinking, and the Labour Party, which appeared to revive under the leadership of trade-union maverick Amir Peretz, is also languishing in the polls. General elections are scheduled for 28 March, and the outcome is still very uncertain. Nevertheless, I shall risk a prediction: it will make little difference who forms the next Israeli government.

Whether the next Prime Minister is Ehud Olmert, 'Bibi' Netanyahu, or even Amir Peretz, the occupation will go on, with more or less cosmetic adjustments (removal of one set of settlers to be replaced with another), the huge wall will continue to be built, mostly through Palestinian lands, militants will continue to be selected for assassination, Palestinians will still be barred from working in Israel, and their unemployment, malnourishment and general wretchedness will remain unchanged, or worsen. However, some contacts with Hamas will take place, at first in secret, then more or less openly, because a total absence of communication will simply not be possible. After all, the PLO charter had also called for Israel's eradication, and was changed only in the context of mutual recognition and cooperation. As for renouncing violence - that too can hardly be expected to be implemented by only one side to the conflict.

The irony is that from now on, money paid to the Palestinian Authority will not be spent on Armani suits, expensive cars and five-star hotels in the world's capitals, but will mostly be channelled to Hamas' clinics, schools, daycare centres, assistance to the needy - as well as religious activities, of course. This fact seems to elude the donors and creditors, who might otherwise make good use of real dialogue. But then, dialogue has never been the forte of Middle Eastern politics.

End


Copyright © 1995 - 2006 The Hindu
Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the consent of The Hindu