Skip to main content

My 2 cents on the Palestinian Elections

Let's get back to the political sphere in the Middle East.

In the last few months, we have seen democracy in action in the Middle East, specifically in the Palestinian elections. Three main parties ran in the elections. The first was the leftist Fatah, which comprised of members of the Palestinian National Authority. Another party was the center-from-left Third Way, which was run by a few businesspeople and Hanan Ashrawi, a former PA cabinet member. However, the surprising entry in the elections was the radical Islamic Party, Hamas, which was notorious for its suicide bombings and its agenda to destroy the "Zionist entity" and in place of it establish an Islamic government over all of Palestine. Of course, that was not going to happen, as Israel has become too strong for any MidEastern nation to deal with.

The results were of no surprise, really. However, contrary to popular belief, Hamas did not win an absolute majority:
Hamas did not even win a majority of the popular vote. Despite the strong component protesting corruption and lawlessness in the Palestinian Authority, Hamas received 44.4 percent of the popular vote, only slightly more than the 41.4 percent that went to Abbas' party, Fatah. Importantly, the remaining 14 percent went to parties that are both secular in nature and support the two state solution to the conflict.
On the other hand, many pro-Israeli hawks and other critics of Palestinian legislature cry out that the Palestinians voted Hamas for its policies in destroying Israel. If that were true, then there would be no such thing as an American leftist. As indicated by the same article, Hamas got the vote citing corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The Third Way, however, has not done enough for its electoral campaign, and received less than 5% of the total vote.

There were several factors that led to the electoral victory for Hamas. The first and foremost was the fact that the PNA was corrupt and scandalized: throughout its reign, the PNA hogged most of the aid it received. Much of the cash went to Arafat and his cronies, and much of it was transferred to Swiss bank accounts. There were also many cases of embezzlement and conspiring with Israel in cracking down on even moderate sheiks.

Another factor was the sucking up of Fatah and the PA to the Knesset and the U.S. In meetings with Knesset members, the PA entered with a list of demands, but the sad truth is that only Israeli demands are fulfilled. The Palestinian people, suffering from financial and social depression, receive this form of oppression two-fold: from the Israeli Army and the PA's corruption. However, the PA has never made any grounds in representing the Palestinian people: it's always the demands of Israel that have to be fulfilled for some reason. I mean, if you take a look at the "peace" offers, you'll find that a lot of them involve concessions and compromises on part of the Palestinian people. These of course will be explained in greater detail later on, from the Oslo accords to the "generous" offer at Camp David.

Although not as important, the fact that the PA is comprised of thugs and thieves was another factor of them receiving less votes. The impunity and gangster-like mentality of several PA members led to a general distaste and disgust of the party as a whole, not to mention the idea that they were always involved in quarelling amongst themselves more than addressing the important issues of the Palestinian people, who always receive the short end of the stick from both the Israelis and the PNA. Also, the suckups of the PA are forced to put the security and welfare of the Israeli people, who have it going fine and well, before the security and welfare of the Palestinian people, who are suffering daily from the Israeli occupation, and attacks from both soldiers and settlers.

But wait... those were the negative factors of Fatah, which outweigh its positives.

However, there are other reasons that led to the electoral victory of Hamas. What are those reasons? The answers to this question lies in the politics and dealings of Hamas itself. Unlike Fatah and the PA, Hamas distributed food and aid to the Palestinian people, and provided medical care for any patients needed in the occupied territories. Moreover, there was Hamas's statesman-like position: Hamas, during its electoral campaign, promised to represent the Palestinian people and meet their needs. While I am no fan of Hamas or its tactics against the Israelis (in fact, I find Israeli terrorism to be much much worse than Palestinian terrorism), a step in the right direction is something I can support.

For too long have the Palestinians suffered under Israeli oppression, something that the Israelis continue to deny and exacerbate. If Hamas can bring about a change and expose the Israeli oppression for what it really is, perhaps the world will come to the aid of the Palestinian people. If Hamas plays tough on the negotiation table, kudos to them: it's about time someone represented the Palestinian people, who have been misrepresented for the past 50+ years. The Israelis have never seen the Palestinians as a party for negotiating, but that will be explained along with the debunking of what was deemed a "generous offer" at Camp David (2000).

The Palestinians did not elect Hamas for the sake of destroying Israel. To say so would be outright idiotic: the Palestinians, like us, are human beings; they want peace, and will choose it when it's given to them. However, the Israelis, despite all their "concessions", have never brought forth an acceptable proposition for "peace", and have always hit the Palestinians below the belt with their incursions and attacks. The Palestinians made their choice: they elected a party that will give them a voice against the ongoing oppression, and hopefully a change will come about this.

Farewell and God bless.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un