Hamas in Charge--What Does This Mean?

Hamas in Charge—What does this mean?
February 1, 2006

Democracy is breaking out in the Middle East as an oppressed people exercise their right to self-determination and…elect Hamas, a hard-line political party our government can’t stand! Lately, I’ve been fielding plenty of questions on campus regarding Hamas’ overwhelming victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. It’s been a few years since I lived there in the thick of things, but I will try to offer a little insight to this situation.

Why were they elected?
I understand Hamas’ victory to be primarily an anti-corruption vote. Fatah, Arafat’s more secular party which has been in power for over a decade, is notorious for pocketing funds designated for infrastructure and relief of its citizens. Meanwhile, Hamas and most Arab political parties function like fraternal organizations or ‘burial societies’ as we used to have them here: If your street is full of potholes, Hamas collects money, hires workers, and fixes your road. If your neighborhood needs a park, they get things together and build it. If your kid is run over by a tank, they pay for the funeral, and so on. They’re fairly efficient at this, and tangible results do lead to political popularity. Curiously enough, each political party maintains its own militia. (Remember Sinn Fein and the IRA?) Usually, the militia is all we hear about here. It’s also curious that many Palestinians reported voting for Abu Mazen to replace Arafat because he was the candidate most favored as a ‘partner for peace’ by Israel and the U.S. As soon as he was elected, both countries changed their stance and the people felt tricked. This time, they weren’t going to make the same mistake.

What about the rhetoric?
Hamas has a reputation for claiming Israel has no right to exist, and for using violence as a method of resisting the military occupation of Palestinian lands. For this reason, the U.S. and other donors are considering withholding aid to Palestine, which keeps civil society afloat, until it renounces both these stances. It is worth noting that the other nation involved is not being asked to renounce violence or acknowledge the right of Palestine and its citizens to exist in order to continue qualifying for our aid, which is mostly military in nature. With U.S. dollars, we are largely responsible for making Israel the 4th largest military power in the world. This is despite its heavily documented human rights abuses. Violence is violence, and attacks on civilians are attacks on civilians. While both parties have participated in each, Israel has carried out a far higher proportion of both (see Human Rights Watch, www.hrw.org, Amnesty International, www.amnestyusa.org).

What’s worth worrying about?
I’m most concerned about women’s rights. NPR reported (Morning Edition,1/31/06) that legislation is already being proposed to mandate the headscarf and abaya for all women. Currently, Palestinians are one of the most secular Arab peoples, with customs varying by family and location. Curiously enough, in the same newscast, NPR reported that the Dutch government is considering legislation to ban the burqa. Do nations really have any business either mandating or banning women’s dress or faith practices?

What is responsible action on our part?
I don’t like the idea of cutting off Western funding because the citizens of a heavily aid-dependent country freely elected a political party we dislike. Political or religious extremism and economic freezes simply do not mix. Aid dollars that support education and communication with the outside world are what help nurture real democracy and moderation. Our commitment in dollars to a civilian population’s basic needs is also the only legitimacy we have in telling a suffering people how they should or should not resist military occupation.

While we should condemn all forms of violence in this conflict, particularly against civilians, we have a responsibility ourselves not to harm civilians in our response to this new arrangement of power in Palestine.

We can encourage the redemption of Hamas, providing adequate resources for them to begin meeting the daily life needs of the people, as well as incentives for peacemaking gestures. To shut them out completely can only lead to more disillusionment and violence. We must do the same for the Israeli government.