When Hamas, unexpectedly, won the 2006 parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the message from the one-third of the Palestinian people living in those territories was clear: no more of the "peace process" facade -- with its untiring "two-state solution" slogan that never materialized, and no more of the bread crumbs offered to the new inauthentic NGOized, Osloized leadership classes. (In the years since the 1993 Oslo accords, funding NGOs -- nongovernmental organizations -- has been a major means for foreign governments to influence, co-opt and neutralize Palestinian politics. This process of "Osloization" made some Palestinian organizations more loyal to their funders than to their principles.) Many of those who voted Hamas into power were not, in fact, supporters of the organization, but rather disgruntled Palestinians looking for change and reform after 13 years of futile, meaningless negotiations that did huge damage to the Palestinian cause and transformed it from a liberation struggle supported by millions all over the world into a dispute between "two equal parties," two countries fighting for border arrangements...
[55476] |
Uruknet on Alexa
:: Segnala Uruknet agli amici. Clicka qui.
:: Invite your friends to Uruknet. Click here.
:: Segnalaci un articolo
:: Tell us of an article
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
|
|
Hamas' political immaturity
Haidar Eid, The Electronic Intifada
 |
Hamas leaders like Ismail Haniyeh, seen here with former US President Jimmy Carter in Gaza, have adopted the two-state solution against the resistance party constituents' interests. (Muhammad Al-Ostaz/MaanImages)
June 25, 2009
When Hamas, unexpectedly, won the 2006 parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the message from the one-third of the Palestinian people living in those territories was clear: no more of the "peace process" facade -- with its untiring "two-state solution" slogan that never materialized, and no more of the bread crumbs offered to the new inauthentic NGOized, Osloized leadership classes. (In the years since the 1993 Oslo accords, funding NGOs -- nongovernmental organizations -- has been a major means for foreign governments to influence, co-opt and neutralize Palestinian politics. This process of "Osloization" made some Palestinian organizations more loyal to their funders than to their principles.)
Many of those who voted Hamas into power were not, in fact, supporters of the organization, but rather disgruntled Palestinians looking for change and reform after 13 years of futile, meaningless negotiations that did huge damage to the Palestinian cause and transformed it from a liberation struggle supported by millions all over the world into a dispute between "two equal parties," two countries fighting for border arrangements.
Undoubtedly, Hamas' electoral victory turned the whole equation upside down and was considered a blow to the Bush doctrine in the Middle East. The price paid by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been extremely heavy. Not because of their support for Hamas, but rather because of their choice to put an end to the "peace process" charade. Had there been another Palestinian political force that could be trusted to fight the outcome of the Oslo accords in a principled manner, it might have had a chance. But by 2006, the left had already gone through a process of NGOization and Osloization that put it to the right of Hamas, dovetailing with the right wing that was already in control of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Hamas, then, won the elections because it was expected, whether rightly or wrongly, to rectify historic mistakes made by the official leadership -- most importantly defending the right of return of refugees, and putting an end to the unattained two-state solution. A deadly, hermetic siege was imposed on the Palestinians of Gaza as soon as the election results came out, followed by numerous attempts to destabilize the situation through a US-backed coup attempt, culminating in Israel's 22-day genocidal war on Gaza.
The latest war was a political tsunami aimed at creating a sense of defeat amongst the Palestinians, and a sense that they are confronted with a metaphysical power that can never be defeated. The message was that their choice of an anti-Oslo political power was not only a political mistake, but an existential one as well, a mistake that would change their future altogether; hence, the calculated targeting of children and families. More than 90 percent of the victims of the massacre were civilians, according to leading human rights organizations. None of the declared objectives of the massacre, however, were achieved: Hamas is still in power and the resilience of the Palestinians of Gaza is stronger than ever. Israel has failed to make them feel that they are a defeated people.
Hamas rallied tens of thousands of its supporters in celebrations of the "historic victory over the Zionist entity." Its spokespersons reiterated again and again that based on this historic victory, there would be no return to the pre-massacre siege and that reality on the ground now "necessitated" new steps. The Palestinian people, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Diaspora and in 1948 Palestine (the part of Palestine on which Israel was declared in 1948), also had high expectations. Gaza 2009 was, rightly, expected to be the Sharpeville of Palestine, a turning point in the history of the Palestinian struggle against Israel's policy of occupation, colonization and apartheid.
This historic victory against Israel's aggression required a visionary leadership, one with a clear-cut strategy of liberation that divorces itself completely from the Oslo accords and the deceptive two-prison solution. Instead of building on this victory and on the outpouring of international support in the streets of Istanbul, London, Amman, Caracas, Johannesburg and even Muscat -- to mention but a few cities -- the leadership of the Palestinian resistance movement, including Hamas, rushed to Cairo for what turned out to be endless, futile rounds of national unity dialogue. One is not, of course, against any serious attempt for national unity, but one also takes it for granted that the ABC of leadership, especially elected ones, is to be with the masses. The siege, which so far has led to the death of more than 400 seriously ill persons (from lack of medicine or ability to travel abroad for treatment), should have been exposed as the obstacle that prevents the leaders of the resistance from having national dialogue because they, as leaders, cannot and should not leave their besieged, traumatized people and move freely outside Gaza. This should have become a condition. If any Arab dignitary wanted to have a discussion with the victorious leadership, he or she should have been invited to Gaza. One would have expected the Gaza leadership to act as a victorious one; to wait in Gaza for at least one month after the end of the massacre and make it clear that they would welcome any sign of real support and solidarity while they were staying with their people in Gaza. That, alas, did not happen.
This was a step in what I call the "abortion of victory." Instead of coming up with an alternative program to that of the Palestinian Authority, and all the organizations belonging to it, and instead of building on the unprecedented, growing solidarity with the Palestinians of Gaza, the leadership of Hamas, in statements made by its leaders and -- more importantly -- letters sent to the US president, have started reinventing the wheel! I will limit myself to a couple of important examples: Hamas' flirtation with the Barack Obama administration and their endorsement of the two-prison solution.
After US President Barack Obama's much-talked-about speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he had nothing of substance to say about the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, Dr. Ahmed Yousef, a senior advisor to Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, in an interview on Al-Jazeera International, was extremely happy with the speech which was, according to him, like Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech! Two nights later, and on Hamas' Al-Aqsa television, the ex-spokesperson of the first Hamas government argued, and I would say with conviction, that Obama's (in)famous speech was a clear indication of the change taking place in the US administration and that "we" need to make use of the "diversity" within the American establishment! This, of course, came after Hamas sent a letter to Obama which Senator John Kerry, who visited Gaza a few months ago, refused to carry.
Failing to understand that Obama's election does not represent a radical change in American Middle East policy is a sign of, to say the least, political immaturity. The "diversity" within the US establishment is like the difference between the Likud and Labor parties in Israel. Obama still represents the Democratic Party, which is a part of the mainstream American establishment. Obama's victory in the presidential elections, therefore, has not produced a change in the nature of American imperialism. Obviously, Hamas has bought the fiction brought about by the election of Obama and his "seriousness" in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas fails to see that in essence, what Obama is offering is not different from what George W. Bush and, before him, Bill Clinton offered. In his speech, Obama made it crystal clear that the US-Israel ties are "unbreakable;" prior to that he was more than clear in announcing that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of the Jewish state." For the Obama administration, Israel's security remains the issue, which, ultimately, marginalizes the whole issue of Palestine.
The Israeli-American siege imposed on Gaza would be lifted immediately, if Obama decided it should be so. In fact, the US is not merely complicit, but rather a participant in the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinians of Gaza. Any freshman student of political science, not to say a child on the streets of Gaza, would tell you this.
The second, more important example, of Hamas' political immaturity, is its acceptance of the already dead two-state solution. In a joint a press conference with former US President Jimmy Carter, Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh said that Hamas accepts a state limited only to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the areas occupied by Israel in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital. This is ironic, not to say bizarre, since every politician in Palestine knows that a two-state solution has been rendered impossible by Israeli colonization of the West Bank, by the looting and pillaging of Gaza, by the construction of the apartheid wall, and by the expansion of so-called "Greater Jerusalem." Since 1967, the US has supported and is still supporting Israel in creating conditions that have made the two-state solution impossible, impractical and unjust.
For a senior Hamas leader to reiterate what has already been said by the head of its political bureau, Khaled Meshal, one can conclude that this is the beginning of a process of deterioration -- even Osloization -- not only in rhetoric, but also in action. The Palestinian people are not only those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There are six million refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are waiting to return to their villages and towns in accordance with UN Resolution 194, and 1.4 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, who have third-class status. The Palestinian struggle is not for an independent state on the 1967 borders, but rather for liberation -- liberation for all the inhabitants of the historic land of Palestine. Accepting the illusion called an independent state on the 1967 borders is, in actual fact, an acceptance of a racist solution par excellence.
By launching its genocidal war against Gaza, Israel has shot the two-state-prison solution in the head, which consequently means a dire need for an alternative program that addresses the Palestinian question as one of democracy, equality, human rights and, ultimately, liberation from occupation, colonization and apartheid. Hamas, alas, has fallen within the trap of Oslo and its fetishization of statehood at the expense of Palestinian fundamental rights. Of course, one tends to agree that the current serious crisis in Palestine emanates from the nature of the deformed political system created by the Oslo accords and their claim of laying the foundation for a two-state solution. By participating in the January 2006 elections, most political organizations in Palestine, including Hamas, showed an implicit acceptance of the new political reality created by the Oslo accords and hence the two-state solution. But, ironically, Hamas claimed otherwise, that its objective was to bring Oslo to an end.
In the late 1980s, the Palestinian national movement accepted the two-state solution and at a later stage, recognized Israel. This is the same resistance movement that in the 1960s emerged to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Behind-the-scenes negotiations, ultimately, led to the signing of the notorious Oslo accords, which paved the way for the transformation of the Palestinian cause into one of charity. Now, Hamas is reinventing the wheel. No wonder, one has a sense of déjà vu.
Mohamed Hasanein Heikal and Azmi Bishara, two leading intellectuals in the Arab world, have repeatedly criticized Hamas for its lack of exposure to the external world. This world does not only include the US, Iran and the official Arab regimes. It is a world that also includes the same civil society organizations that pressured their governments in the late 1980s to boycott the apartheid regime of South Africa; it has the university students who have occupied their campuses in an attempt to pressure their administrators to divest from companies having ties with apartheid Israel; it has the students of Hampshire College, the University and College Union of the UK, the Scottish Trade Union Council, the South African trade union federation Cosatu, and others in Venezuela, Bolivia and further afield. It has the Palestinian BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) National Committee. The struggle is not only an armed one, but it includes other pillars as well, pillars that emphasize the importance of international solidarity and mass mobilization, rather than placing all hope and faith in Barack Obama and his administration.
Gaza 2009 -- the political steadfastness the people have shown in reaction to Israel's genocidal war -- has proven that the Palestinian people are way ahead of their leaderships!
Haidar Eid is an independent political commentator.
|
|
:: Article nr. 55476 sent on 25-jun-2009 22:33 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=55476
Link: electronicintifada.net/v2/article10620.shtml
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
|
COMMENTS BY READERS OF URUKNET
The COMMENTs of our readers are the sole responsability of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of URUKNET. If you believe that any COMMENT contains pornographic, racist or otherwise objectionable or offensive content, or if the COMMENT is contrary to law in any way, please let us know. Our legal representatives will review any and all complaints and, if any complaint is deemed to be accurate, the COMMENT will removed at once.
Comments must be pertinent to the article and must not exceed 5000 characters.
To publish long comments, send it to the our Editor, it can become an article.
Do not complain to the Editor if you do not agree with an article or with a comment: simply reply here below.
You can get the password to become a REGISTERED USER and POST YOUR COMMENTS by clicking HERE (needed only once forever).
Click HERE to post your own comment. Now, also users not registered can post their comments.
| Comment by eric lindblad - 26 Jun 2009 - 01:22 [REGISTERED USER] |
En fejl i lov ( an error in law)
Eric Lindblad
Samuel Pufendorf was of course an apologist for those who were dismayed at the d ecline of the Hanseatic League (merchants), for the rising interest of the Swedi sh bourgeoisie's commercial maritime trade, and for that of the English and Dutc h bourgeoisie, in contravention of the Danish (i.e. Nordic) Maritime Law of Fred erik II King of Denmark.*
* Herein one suspends the bourgeoisie' commercial trade interests on behalf of t he general Danish economy, under certain circumstances. Such was applied during the Danish herring season through the prohibition of foreign commercial vessels transit through 'The Sound'.
Therefore the Natural Law modifications of Pufendorf, adaption of Hobbes and of Grotius, were, contrary to economics, and towards the interest of the rising bou rgeoisie. That the Dutch and the English, also the French, would adopt such meas ures or conceptions in Maritime Law as the 'open sea' mare clausum theory, exemp lifies the prevalence of the juridical concepts as of favoring such, their respective States', bourgeoisies' class interests. This is adopted furthermore in the U.S., newly independent English colonies in America, adopting the Vattel (Schweiz) Natural Law premise.
The question of course arises as that of the Palestinian Mandate. And whether as such its formation violated Danish Maritime, and, of consequence, International Law. That International Law must be not exclusive of, at minimum, of certain pr onounced trends in law, as the Nordic Law, Islamic Law, the Marxist-Leninism Law , etc.
Therefore the concept of 'law of nations' must be redefined.
Eric Lindblad
Below is a brief synopsis of how the premise of corporations came to be conceive d the under Natural Law School [system], also the shift of corporations from the 'original' public law sphere to the private law sphere.
societas = Fellowship |
| Comment by eric lindblad - 26 Jun 2009 - 01:22 [REGISTERED USER] |
Ernest Barker, (published, 1950) « Natural Law and the Theory of Society: 1500 t o 1800 », as a translation of 5 subsections or the fourth volume of O. Gierke's « Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrechts » , with an added (translated) lecture on t he 'Ideas of Natural Law and Humanity' by Ernst Troeltsch.
- - -
Otto Friedrich Von Gierke, in his Das deutsche Genossenschaftsrechts (The German Law of Associations), cites, volume IV, prof. J.H. Böhmer (1674-1749), Universi ty of Halle, especially civil and ecclesiastical law:
S. Pufendorf in his De jure naturae et gentium VII, c. 2, §§ 21-3, in addressing peculiaria corpora civitati subdita (peculiar subordinate bodies) – aside from the Family – the publica, those founded by the sovereign, and privata, those whi ch owe their existence to a contract ipsorum civium conventio (I agree with the others) or to some external authority – private associations can only become corpora legitima with the consent of the State – and, J.N. Hertius in his Commentationum atque opuscularum, reckoned among the first to use the antithesis of societas aequatoria and societas rectoria, with a clear sense of its implication, to explain the relation between the Corporation and the State.
Böhmer in Introductio in jus publicum universale, P. spec. II, c. 4, 1709, Pragu e edition 1743, delineated this new doctrine regarding corporations, acknowledg i ng 'liberty of association', as from a state of nature, but limiting the power [ and, authority] of the corporation, and placing it subordinate to the State. On the one hand the corporation, had it real and effective social authority as recognized, such exercise of authority cannot be an inherent right, such authority being excluded by the idea of societas aequalis, and thereby only exercised in the name and under the commission of the sovereign, on the other, a corporation acting on its inherent right, there is nothing more (attributed) than a contractual obligation of the members [ ...to accept corporate authority], even under such circumstances the State is entitled to act in its suzerainty over the corporation to interfere and impose limits on its actions, or to reserve the right of previous assent. Böhmer rejects the idea of corporations legislating(47), or judging, or administering for themselves.
The theory drawn of Natural Law, of societas aequalis (deferred to Collective un ity) and and societas inaequalis (deferred to Representative unity), the fundam e ntal distinction between equal and un-equal societies: when the antithesis of so cietas aequalis and inaequalis had been developed to such a point, thus it be cam e possible to use a natural- law basis of argument as a lever for ejecting the law of corporations entirely from the sphere of public law, and removing it into the sphere of private law. If public law were defined as the system of rules relating to government, and if, again, associations were held to be incapable of producing any government, it followed that public law was concerned with associations not as active 'Subjects', but as passive 'Objects', and only dealt with them in so far as it dealt with the rights of governing authority over them; and on this it followed in turn that the rights which belonged to corporate bodies must be merely rights at private law.
47. Böhmer ascribes legislative activity exclusively to the Sovereign; and he ex plains the legal validity of customary law, of foreign law [in cases of private international law?] and of 'statutes' [i.e. by-laws of corporations], by his ha v ing given them his approbation. He regards municipal self-government in genera l not as a right belonging to municipalities (städtishes Recht), but as a form of legislative authority delegated to magistratus inferiores. The by-laws of collegia et corpora [i.e. corporate bodies other than municipalities], in regard to their own affairs, are in his view merely pacta among the members, requiring, as such, subsequent confirmation by the sovereign. But the sovereign may go further: he may make even these by-laws [though they are only internal pacta] dependent on his previous sanction; and he is acting rightly if he does so. In any case, he has the two rights of inspectio and directio: he can cancel by-laws which are an abuse; and he can, in general, prescribe the procedure to be followed in any respect. |
| Comment by guardian - 26 Jun 2009 - 17:54 [USER NOT REGISTERED] | Considering the constraints, a bit too harsh on Hamas even though all that was s aid is absolutely true. With regard to Obama, he has been hand picked by the Zio nists specifically because of his middle name which makes him rather attractive to the unenlightened Muslims. In this respect, he is even more harmful to the Pa lestinian cause than his predecessor. People ought to wake up to the fact that Obama is an annointed illuminati; anyone who saw his picture taking the second oath, should have noticed the choice of venue and the picture in the background go to:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/obama-took-oath.html
In a nutshell, Obama is no friend of anyone, least of all the Palestinians, othe r than his real masters. |
|
[ Printable version
] | [ Send it to a friend ]
[ Contatto/Contact ] | [ Home Page ] | [Tutte le notizie/All news ]
|
|
Uruknet on Twitter
::
RSS updated to 2.0
:: English
:: Italiano
::
Uruknet for your mobile phone:
www.uruknet.mobi
The newsletter archive
|
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
|
:: All events
|
