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

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...