I've heard it said a few times now that you can't get rid of, or be too harsh to Hamas because the Palestinians freely chose them in fair elections. This is a strong point (prima facie at least).
As the strongest advocate of democratic government I absolutely believe that one must respect the choice of government in a democratic election.
However, do not believe that the situation in Gaza is anything remotely close to a democracy and nor has it been for at least 18 months.
Democracy is more than just the act of choosing a party or politician. It is an ongoing process of deliberation and accountability. It is the rule of law, separation of powers and branches of government. It is a free press and a vibrant civil society. None of these things have existed in Gaza since Hamas forcibly and violently seized power from Fatah in 2007.
In fact, has anyone read the constitution of the Palestinian Authority recently? http://www.palestinianbasiclaw.org/2003-amended-basic-law. I think you'll find that what it stipulates is a million miles from what Hamas currently presides over.
So, my response to the point that Hamas were freely chosen is relatively clear. Hamas were indeed chosen by the Palestinian people and a large proportion of that vote came from Gaza communities. HOWEVER, Hamas were not elected to be the supreme rulers of Gaza but as the majority party of a Palestinian legislature. A legislature which, by the way, was only one branch of government alongside the Presidency and the judiciary - neither of which function in Gaza.
Hamas forfeited their legitimacy when they broke the rules of the democratic game (namely the constitution). Accepting Hamas as the legitimate spokespeople of Gazans would be very much like accepting the congressional Democratic party in the US as the legitimate authority of New Hampshire if it decided to dismantle all the federal institutions in the state by force. Just because most people in New Hampshire voted for democratic congressmen, it does not mean that those democratic congressmen alone are the sole representatives and government of the state.
Hamas will be accepted as legitimate, by me at least, when they abide by the constitution of the Palestinian people. A victory in one branch of government, however decisive, does not entitle that party to shut down the rest of government and proclaim themselves the supreme legitimate authority.
As a side note, it might be interesting to know that Hamas took control of Gaza by force, killing many Fatah supporters and officials in the Gaza strip.
Support for Hamas has been primarily aided by the actions of Israel.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention their support of it as a way if dividing and destabilising the PLO
You do a good job of making me realise just how utterly wrong and inexcusable Zionism is.
Mr Abbas, who leads the secular Fatah faction, disbanded a Government led by the Islamist group and formed an emergency administration after Hamas seized the Gaza Strip by force on June 14.
ReplyDeleteSince then he has ruled by emergency decree.
The senior lawyers who wrote the Basic Law (Palestinian constitution) have said that Mr Abbas has exceeded his powers afforded by the constition.
So all in all Fatah themselves are behaving in unconstitutional manner.
With regards to constitutional rights, when we were at war and facing invasion many human rights were put aside; Gaza was under siege and is now invaded, I'm surprised the Hamas government has managed to hold on for so long, this spite Fatah and Israel attacking it.
Hamas are not far from ideal, but we have to deal in the real world and in that Hamas are in government. If Israel wants peace they have to talk to Hamas.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteDon't listen to the nay-sayers like Merseymike. I think that considering that it is on the whole popular to Israel bash, your point about democracy being an ongoing process is absolutely spot on and the very notion that Hamas could be considered a legitimate democratic party still brings me out in a cold sweat - advocacy of violent destruction of a state / people is not a platform for negotiation.
I too sympathise with your view point that the Palestinians need a state of their own and along 1967 borders is reasonable. But you're right, the standard for what constitutes legitimacy in a democratic country should be higher than he who is able to beat the most cr*p out of their opposition as is the case of Hamas in Gaza.
There need to be a few less apologists in this discussion - Israel is right to defend itself but exerting aggression. Since Hamas have had no trouble asserting aggression against Israel during the ceasefire by firing rockets into Israel, personally I'd allow Israel to daisy-cut the place until Hamas is bombed out of existance.
Collateral damage in this war isn't caused by negligent Israeli soldiers being trigger-happy. Granted innocent lives have been lost, but then when Hamas are using innocent lives as human shields what else can you expect?
Ravi - I agree with you that Fatah are also not behaving properly. I might even agree that Israel need to talk to Hamas if they want peace (I haven't decided yet). But this is not my point. My point is simply that arguing Hamas are the legitimate authority governing palestinians in Gaza is deeply flawed.
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you for your comemnts Jamesh (although perhaps a little hawkish on the whole daisy-cutting thing!)
Sorry I must have misunderstood this phrase,
ReplyDelete"Hamas forfeited their legitimacy when they broke the rules of the democratic game (namely the constitution)"
There are two bodies large enough to lead the PA Hamas and Fatah, if both forfeit the right to lead what then?
Here are the facts as I see it. We have on one hand an elected (albeit narrowly) Hamas government with racist views and (nearly) internationally isolated , on the other hand we have a democratically elected, but politically weak government in Israel hoping to score some cheap points at the loss of life in Gaza to ensure political survival. This is not a great time to be either a Palestinian nor Israeli, as the alternatives are even worse.
Jamesh said
"....advocacy of violent destruction of a state / people is not a platform for negotiation."
and this,
"I'd allow Israel to daisy-cut the place until Hamas is bombed out of existance.
Collateral damage in this war isn't caused by negligent Israeli soldiers being trigger-happy...."
Irony?
I too would much rather Hamas were not part of the picture, but they are, and so we cannot pretend they do not exist.
ReplyDeleteRemember that many of Israel's past leaders were fully fledged terrorists - Begin the most obvious example.
On all the hamas stuff, please see this morning's post and read the article.
ReplyDeleteOn the point about Begin - yes he was a terrorist, and I'm more than a little ashamed that such a person was elected to be the Prime Minister. But he was elected. As I said in this post at the top of the page, I absoutely believe in the right of people to elect their own leaders, whoever they happen to be. If Hamas won the election and then acted within the laws of the constitution then fine. If they then went on to win the Presidency in fair and free elections then fine. But Hamas haven't done this. They have an armed militia (which is not ok for democratic politics) and as discussed in the article, no mandate to rule Gaza by force.