A New Hope? Hamas Victory

CounterPunch
31 January 2006


A New Hope?
Hamas's Victory

By OREN BEN-DOR

Commentators on Hamas' victory in the election preach the acceptance
of Hamas as a negotiating partner in the Israel/Palestine peace
process. The central messages in these commentaries seem to be that,
1. The world in general, and Israelis in particular, should respect
the democratic choice of the Palestinian People. 2. That in order to
qualify as a negotiating partner, Hamas should unequivocally
recognise the right of Israel to exist in secure borders. It should
also stop calling for the destruction of Israel. 3. That it is time
for Hamas to renounce violence as a part of its evolution from being
a terrorist organisation into a powerful political party. 4. That
providing it renounces violence, Hamas should now become a part of
the negotiations towards a two states solution in the Palestine,
namely a Jewish state and a viable Palestinian state bordered by the
pre-67 Green Line.

Looking carefully at these seemingly reasonable and pragmatic
commentators there seems to be a consensus about two choices which
are now open to Hamas: either to stay classified as an extremist
terrorist organisation on the margins of political debate, or to
become a puppet in a Zionist-American show by accepting uncritically
the agenda of negotiating a two state solution in Palestine.

Such a choice dictates, not only to Hamas, but to the public, what is
actually the problem in Palestine. What I argue is that it is not
plausible to call for an organisation to become non-violent, while at
the same time continuing to smother the very moral cause underpinning
the voice of this organisation, a smothering that has inaugurated the
very expression of that voice by violent means.

The cocktail of recommendations these commentators offer us is a sure
recipe to eliminate any possibility of reflect upon the main problem
in Palestine - Zionism. To be sure, Hamas itself is not a homogenous
organisation and has internal disagreements. But we can safely say
that in doubting the "right of Israel to exist", Hamas has attempted,
hitherto unsuccessfully, to bring the actuality of the Palestinian
catastrophe, the Nakbah, in 1948 into out consciousness. During the
process that culminated in 1948, the whole of Palestine was occupied;
the majority of its indigenous population, 750000 of them, were
expelled to make room for Jewish immigrants. Many more thousands of
Palestinians were internally displaced by the Israeli state during
1948 and ever since. Those who were left in their villages have been
forced to be second class citizens in a state whose self definition
is based on dominant religion and ethnicity. A Jew in Russia has more
rights in the state of Israel than an Arab who is already a citizen,
or an expelled or displaced Arab refugee.

Hamas has been fighting for the acknowledgement that the
establishment, persistence and survival of Zionism is conceptually
connected to the drive for suppressing the colossal dispossession
inflicted upon Palestinians as well as their daily suffering. The
message that Hamas stands for, namely that Zionism is a non-
empathetic, colonialist and expansionist movement is an important one
to reflect upon by Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Hamas' election can
also be read as a wish by the Palestinian people to bring this
message from the margins into the main stream - something not carried
out well enough, if at all, by their previous representatives.

For that message to cease to be expressed through violence it must
not be paraphrased into an acceptable Zionist agenda. This is why it
is important not to depoliticise Hamas. Hamas should not become a
part and parcel of a stagnant and misleading debate which is limited
to how best to configure two states in Palestine. Hamas should not be
enforced to become reasonable while reasonableness means to sit
together with so called left Zionists of the like of Yossi Bailin.

Now, when Hamas is elected, it is the time to legitimate its voice.
It is time to reinforce Hamas resistance to the immorality and
uncritically accepted legitimacy which the world leaders have
hitherto bestowed upon the Zionist project. The portrayal of Hamas'
voice as a blunt denial of the "right of Israel to exist" has indeed
belligerent tone to it, signalling destruction and annihilation.
However, understanding this voice as an ethical cry to the world to
not allow Israel the right to persist in its racist self-definition
is a much better way of articulating the moral message.

The US is captive of Zionism. It then falls upon the EU among others
to assume the sublime role of facilitating the conditions which will
actually enable Hamas to renounce violence without becoming
spineless. This the EU can do by supporting Hamas as the now elected
representative of the Palestinian cause. Only in this way can the
election results become the initiation of a world-level resistance to
US-Zionist hegemony. It is only then that the whole of people in
Palestine would have the hope of less violence. It is only by
touching the core of pain and suffering that truth and reconciliation
can begin. Baruch Spinoza's dictum that "There is no hope without
fear" could not be more appropriate.

Dr. Oren Ben-Dor grew up in Israel. He teaches Legal and Political
Philosophy at Southampton University, United Kingdom.