February 12, 2006

WHAT THE WESTERN ALLIANCE WITH FATAH WROUGHT:

Why Hamas Won (Neve Gordon, 2/08/06, History News Network)

Founded in Gaza at the beginning of the first Intifada (December 1987) by Sheik Ahmad Yassin, Hamas is a direct extension of the Muslim Brotherhood. Although in the media Hamas tends to be identified with its military arm, Izzeddin al-Qassam, which is well known for its suicide attacks against Israeli targets, the organization's popularity in the Occupied Territories actually stems from its being seen as the voice of Palestinian dignity and the symbol of the defense of Palestinian rights at a time of unprecedented hardship, humiliation, and despair.

People who voted for Hamas emphasize not only the heroic acts of its combatants, but also its reputation for clean conduct, modesty, and honesty, which have been pointedly contrasted with the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. Many of its followers do not subscribe to religious fundamentalism, but rather support the organization due to its pragmatic approach characterized by support for the short-term objective of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, while still maintaining the long-term goal of establishing an Islamic state that would replace Israel and offer a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.

Most importantly, perhaps, Hamas acquired much of its political credit from its charity and social service networks. It built kindergartens and schools (that offer free meals for children), education centers for women, and youth and sports clubs. Its medical clinics provide subsidized treatment to the sick and the organization extends financial and technical assistance to those whose homes had been demolished as well as to refugees living in sub-standard conditions.

In other words, Hamas was elected not only because it is considered an alternative to the corrupt Palestinian Authority, but also because Israel created the conditions that made it an indispensable social movement.


Folks here at least have the honesty to admit that they'd not have voted for Fatah.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 12, 2006 8:26 AM
Comments

We'll see how the reputation for honesty fares afew Hamas receives a few hundred million from the EU and UN agencies. Were I a Swiss banker, I'd keep a few appointments open.

Posted by: BC Monkey at February 12, 2006 11:36 AM

Seeing Abu Amar; the late Arafat, started out in the Brotherhood, there's no big surprise there.
Yasin, graduated from the Notre Dame of Jihadism
Al Azhar U.; just like his fellow alumni; Sheik
Rahman, Sheik Quaradwi; suicide bomber promoting friend of London mayor Livingstone, among others.

Posted by: narciso at February 12, 2006 12:09 PM
its being seen as the voice of Palestinian dignity and the symbol of the defense of Palestinian rights at a time of unprecedented hardship, humiliation, and despair
Caused in no small part by Hamas' attacks on Israel. It's like getting a collateralized loan from a bank that stole your checking account.
while still maintaining the long-term goal of establishing an Islamic state that would replace Israel and offer a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.
While committing a Second Holocaust, but why go in to minor details like that?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 12, 2006 2:52 PM

it's not a Holocaust when you're an occupied people. For instance, no one thinks of the Russians as Holocausting Napoleon or Hitler, not of us as holocausting the Brits.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2006 4:16 PM

I thought a Holocaust was a thing that killed five or ten million Jews. If Hamas gets its way there will be, let's see, five or ten million dead Jews, no? Or am I missing something.

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 12, 2006 5:30 PM

joe:

Yes, the precise problem is thinking it only counts if it's Jews. If Palestinians get their way there'll be a Palestinian state.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2006 5:33 PM

Plus or minus a few million dead Jews. But who is counting? They're just Jews.

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 12, 2006 5:43 PM

Well, the minus would be an interesting trick, but Palestine is no threat to the Jews.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2006 7:47 PM

The Palestinians are "occupied" in the same sense and for the same reasons that ethnic Germans in Alsace-Lorraine and the former Prussia are: when you lose aggressive wars against your neighbors, you often lose some territory. That's the breaks, get over it.

Posted by: PapayaSF at February 12, 2006 8:55 PM

OJ is doing his standard bait & switch again – the original quote was of a Palestinian state that repaces Israel. OJ has redefined this to be just a Palestinian state, eliding the key qualifier. On the other hand, I guess once it replaces Israel there won't be an Israel to which it can be a threat.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 12, 2006 9:28 PM

As I asked a few weeks ago, where are the next set of refugee camps going to be?

Posted by: jim hamlen at February 12, 2006 9:49 PM

They will as quickly as Germany and France did and with the same result--self-determination.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2006 9:50 PM

Palestine will replace a portion of the state, that's the nature of the occupation, as America displaced Britain.

The rest is up to Israel.

Posted by: oj at February 12, 2006 9:52 PM

Israel, like the United States is a nation of people of the wagon train, of those who have trekked forth.

People who would take down Israel would probably like the see the United States broken up into pitiful, weak fragments.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 13, 2006 4:49 PM

Yes, but they can't do either.

Posted by: oj at February 13, 2006 4:54 PM
« WOULD YOU TRUST A COLLEGE FRESHMAN? (via Tom Morin): | Main | "POSSIBLE"?: »