Democracy Under Fire in the Middle East

As the world is recovering from a shock of surprise at Hamas' landslide victory in the Palestinian elections, reactions from around the globe are laying bare the immense contradictions, that are woven into the fabric of Israeli occupation. Nevertheless, it has also become clear that the Palestinian response to the current Israeli policy of continuing land confiscation, ethnic segregation and daily oppression is as solid as it is rational.

Even though world leaders are expressing their dismay at this outcome, and forecast a grim future for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, there is a clear and present danger in adopting their attitude towards the situation.

It is wiser to search for an explanation for the change in the political field, than to simply associate Hamas with extremism, and consequently assume that a majority of Palestinians has expressed its wish for the continuation of violent struggle, through this outcome of their elections. After all, violence is no more a goal for Palestinians than it is for any of the world's populations. Like other human beings, they wish to be able to stay in their own land, governed by a government of their own, in sovereignty and independence.

Outside of the context of politics, this translates into being able to follow education, enjoying health care, being able to cultivate land and sell crops, being able to travel within the country as well as outside of it, and not having to fear an unexpected violent death through sniper fire. All of these aspects of normal life have, for a period of many years, been severely constrained under Israeli occupation, in some areas to the level of almost complete absence. In this light, it is striking, how regular mass media have carefully kept the full scope of Palestinian suffering under the Israeli Apartheid regime outside of the public’s eye, in both their news coverage and their political analyses.

Let us not forget, that in 1993, when negotiations started under the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians ended their popular uprising, encouraged by hopes for a better future. Support for Fatah in those days was overwhelming, and the majority of the people were applauding Yasser Arafat for his embracement of the "Peace of the Brave", as was evident from opinion polls and election results. Even most of those who opposed the Oslo venture, were adopting this position not out of their affinity with violent struggle, but based on their distrust of the Israeli government’s intentions.

Their critical stance has unfortunately proven to be a correct estimate of the true Israeli objective underlying its agreement with the Oslo accords. For Israel, Oslo meant ‘Peace for Land’, where a cease-fire based on a process of cleverly stalled negotiations would make it possible to confiscate more land, and lay the basis for further colonization and ethnic segregation.

The fact that Israel, in this period, doubled the number of its settler population from roughly 200,000 to over 400,000, the creation of ethnically segregated cantons, further solidified by the internationally condemned "Separation Wall" structures, and the confiscation of thousands of acres of land, together with the destruction of thousands of homes and crops, illustrate this more clearly than anything.

Only those who have been digesting the daily mass media misrepresentations of reality, and accepting Israel's mantra of retaliation, where every Israeli action, be it military or expansionist, is explained as defensive action against Palestinian attacks, have reason to be surprised at Hamas' win in the elections.

Did Israel really expect, that after having pulled Fatah into its trap of false promises, the Palestinians would seamlessly transform the 'Peace of the Brave' into a 'Peace of the Ignorant'?

It is very likely, that the Israeli architects of this policy were well aware of how the attitude of the Palestinians would be, given the fact that the massive colonization scheme had long been on their hidden agendas.

However, Israeli propaganda and media influence have worked very hard to keep the world's expectations poised in that direction, by covering up the reality of daily life of a people kept under a harsh occupation, forcefully pushed into impoverishment, deprivation of basic life necessities, and total lack of personal security. This approach has been vital in keeping the mechanism of ‘blaming the victim’ intact.

For these reasons, it is neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis who are surprised or shocked at the outcome of the elections, and the question marks are mainly put forward by those on the outside, who are barely aware of the extensiveness of Israel’s extremist occupation policies. They are still under the false impression, that while Israel sits there being an exemplary democracy, Palestinians are waging violence because it is supposedly in their nature to do so. One cannot appreciate the laws of action and reaction in this context, without the proper information.

Why should Palestinians have continued to put their confidence into Fatah, which was fooled by Israel into a scheme that ended up producing the Apartheid Wall, and the almost complete encirclement and division of Jerusalem by settlement expansion, an increase of chaos within Palestinian society itself, and a 'Gaza disengagement' that distracted the world's focus from continued Israeli settler expansionism in the West Bank, while creating more problems for the Palestinians than providing solutions?

Was it at all rational to expect, that Fatah would maintain a reasonable popularity after having been handcuffed by Israeli occupation forces, and with the absence of a viable plan or vision for the future, or any meaningful achievement in the past that could inspire enough confidence?

This is why people in Western societies, unfortunately often misguided by their own media, should not forget to look at their own governments for retribution, in case they are unhappy with Hamas' win in the elections. They might have seen more favorable results from their perspective, if the Palestinian National Authority had been properly supported, not necessarily financially, but more importantly, politically. Instead, European and American governments heartily joined in with Israel's Arafat-bashing, and allowed Israel to literally bomb the PA’s administrative and legislatory apparatus into smithereens.

By using their voting power and veto’s in UN resolutions that might have put some balance into the equation if implemented, they repeatedly helped to provide a cover for the daily practice of Israeli war crimes. Had this not been the case, then Palestinians might have found reason to overlook the corruption scandals associated with the Palestinian Authority under Fatah, and accepted their policy, based on hopes of being able to embark on a road leading to sovereign statehood. Now, continuing negotiations Fatah-style has become a difficult policy to defend, if only due to Israel's practice of having divided the occupied lands into a disjoined array of walled-in cantons, which has dashed all hopes of a viable Palestinian state.

Full article.