The case for Hamas

(Forward: This essay is intended to make the case that Hamas, as imperfect as it may be, is the erroneously and unjustly vilified, and that this vilification helps to make possible the current genocide against the people of Gaza. It also provides information from mainstream news sources which demonstrate that since winning elections three years ago, Hamas has actually acted with more restraint and been more reasonable that either the U.S. or Israeli governments.)

The case for Hamas

Over these past few weeks since the Israeli invasion of Gaza I have spent most of my waking hours following the news, writing articles, and participating in marches and rallies. One thing that has bothered me and which I feel weakens our chances of defending the people of Gaza is the lack of willingness within our movement for people to confront the demonization of Hamas. Let us not forget that the Israelis self-proclaimed objective for invading Gaza is to weaken Hamas. Voices from our movement tend to focus on the plight of Gazan civilians. This is effective in eliciting sympathy from those capable of having sympathy for Palestinians, but it does nothing to take away from Israel their biggest rhetorical weapon: the Hamas bogeyman.

Why make the case for Hamas? Is it because Article Seven of its covenant quotes a prayer that calls on trees and rocks to cry out "O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."? No, that's not it. (Actually, the covenant, sometimes translated as "charter," is not a legal document that provides a framework for how the organization or any territory under its control will be governed but rather a call to arms, much like our Declaration of Independence, which, by the way, describes our own indigenous population as "merciless Indian Savages." Is it because it claimed responsibility for many of the dozens of suicide bombings that took place in Israel during the period between April 1994 and January 2005? Of course not. These inflicted indiscriminate suffering and confused what otherwise should have been the clear moral superiority of the Palestinian cause. Is it because it has provided well-run social welfare programs for the Palestinian population, exercised a high level of restraint since March 2005 whilst all the while being attacked by Israel and vilified by the United States, and won democratic elections in January 2006 with a campaign platform that was much more reasonable in its demands than it is ever given credit for in this country? Yeah, that's the reason.

Yet despite being fairly elected on a platform that emphasized fighting corruption over fighting Israel, Israel and the United States immediately organized economic sanctions against Palestine and began conspiring with Palestinian President Abbas on undermining, isolating, attacking, and overthrowing the elected Hamas government, even as Hamas observed ceasefire after ceasefire, often unilaterally. Despite Hamas' very checkered past, since its election three years ago it has been far more reasonable and restrained and far less violent that the U.S. and Israeli governments that vilify it.

In Michael Moore's book "Dude, Where's My Country?" he counsels his liberal readers to gain credibility when discussing politics with conservative friends by conceding that Mumia Abu-Jamal, a journalist languishing on Pennsylvania's death row for a quarter century, "probably killed that guy." Moore offers no reasoning for his verdict, and indeed it is clear from the context that Mumia is to be offered as a sacrifice on order to gain concessions from conservatives on matters closer to his heart. In the same way, I feel that too many people who are outraged at Israel's actions are nonetheless all too willing to sacrifice Hamas in order to gain minimalist concessions, and often these concessions are not worth the sacrifice. Let me give some examples:

In referring to the ongoing crisis, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said "Let me be clear. I condemn unequivocally and in the strongest possible terms the ongoing rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas and other Palestinian militants. But I also condemn the excessive use of force by Israel." What's wrong with this statement? First let's look at the content. Obviously, the condemnation of Hamas was unequivocal and in the strongest possible terms, where as the condemnation of Israel included no such emphasis. Also, the Hamas rockets were labeled "attacks" whereas the Israeli bombs (which were not specifically mentioned) were simply referred to as "use of force." More importantly, Ban only condemned the "excessive" use of force by Israel, thus implicitly legitimizing violence by Israel up until the point it become "excessive," which of course is a subjective call. One can only assume that Ban is tacitly endorsing violent attacks on Hamas.

Of course, while Ban Ki-moon may want to end the current crisis, he is hardly part of "our movement." Dennis Kucinich is one of only five out of 535 members of Congress to vote against a resolution backing Israel's attack on Gaza. His December 29 statement on the Israeli attack calls for "the United Nations to establish an independent inquiry of Israel's war against Gaza." He notes that "The attacks on civilians represent collective punishment, which is a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." At the same time, Kucinich said that "The perpetrators of attacks against Israel must also be brought to justice," although he stated that Israel had no right to level Gaza in order to strike at Hamas and called the Israeli response "disproportionate."

We know that Kucinich's heart is in the right place, but what is he doing with this statement? He is condemning Hamas for attacks on Israel without qualification, while he is only condemning Israel's actions to the extent they are "disproportionate" and hurt "civilians." Kucinich knows as well as we do that Hamas observed a ceasefire until Israel's November 4 incursion into Gaza in which it killed six Hamas members. Moreover, he knows that Israel never eased up the siege of Gaza as it was required to under the ceasefire terms. Regardless, despite Hamas' restraint during a ceasefire during which Israel starved the people of Gaza, Hamas must be brought to justice for firing rockets at Israel. On the other hand, Kucinich implicitly recognizes Israel's right to summarily carry out death sentences on any and all Hamas members. The Geneva Convention article cited by Kucinich deals with collective punishment, thus implying the legitimacy of attacks on Hamas, which he seems to think deserves punishment. Shades of Michael Moore? Why bolster Israels claim to the Hamas bogeyman in exchange for a call for a UN investigation that will probably never take place?

Another example would be the letter signed by dozens of legal scholars on the situation in Gaza. Let me sum up the letter's main points:

- The Hamas rockets do not entitle Israel to invoke self defense because of their "scale and effect."


- The killing of almost 800 Palestinians is not commensurate to the
deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire.


- For 18 months Israel had imposed an unlawful blockade


- In the three years after Israel's redeployment from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire, while the Israeli army killed about 1,250 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.


- Gaza is occupied territory under international law.

ALSO


- Hamas rockets are "deplorable" and a "war crime."


- Israel does have a right to self-defense provided it is a last resort and is proportional.

Now let's look at the concluding paragraph:
"We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings
which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war
crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to
protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and
scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is
contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas."

First of all, why is this letter even talking about suicide bombings with reference to Hamas. Even the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs page titled "Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel" does not accuse Hamas of having carried out or even having provided material support for any "suicide or other bombings" since it was elected in 2006. The Ministry only states that Hamas "praised" one bombing and notes that a fatal rocket was fired from "Hamas-controlled Gaza." Second, the letter makes no reference to the ceasefires that have extended throughout most of Hamas' rule that were either unilateral or observed by Hamas despite incessant violations by Israel. (These include March 2005-June 2006, November 2006-April 2007, June 2008-December 2008. Even the mainstream sources I cite make it clear that Hamas only broke the ceasefires after deadly Israeli attacks. Hamas sought other ceasefires only to be rebuffed by Israel.) The fact is that Hamas has refrained from firing rockets except after extreme provocation, despite incessant attacks by Israel.

Moreover, the paragraph affirms Israel's "right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population." However, there is no mention of Hamas' or any one else's right similarly protect Gaza, despite the letter having recognized that Gaza is occupied territory and has been under an unlawful blockade and the Israeli army has killed hundreds of Palestinian children in the past few years. If the "last resort" criterion that the letter mentions is applied, who more than Hamas could claim it? After all, their lengthy ceasefires are only reported when they are finally ended, they are excluded from a negotiating process which has failed to bring anything but a deterioration of conditions after 16 years, and their people were placed on the brink of starvation. Why do the signers of this letter only recognize the occupiers' right to self defense while condemning the only means of resistance available to the occupied as "war crimes?"

In conclusion, it seems to me vital that people in the movement to end the occupation learn to stop participating in the vilification of Hamas. I know that its nature as an Islamic movement and its past use of such tactics as suicide bombings make it impossible for many people to embrace, but we have to remember that the Hamas that was elected in January 2006 and the Hamas which is currently being used as the pretext for the Israeli invasion of Gaza has been far more reasonable and restrained and far less violent that the U.S. and Israeli governments. By participating in the vilification of Hamas, we provide Israel with the rhetorical weapons it needs just as much as the physical weapons that our Congress is also providing, paid for by our tax dollars. If we want to stop the violence and end the occupation, we have to summon the courage to make the case for Hamas.

Titus North