Explaining Israel’s Military Strategy

by Vivian Salama

PostGlobal – WashingtonPost.com

It can be suggested that the build-up to this crisis in the Middle East began in 1967, when Israel earned itself a reputation – regionally and globally – as a military power to be reckoned with. In just six days, Israeli Defense Forces advanced to the edge of the Suez Canal, and in one foul swoop, gained control of Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, and the whole of Jerusalem.

It was not until the Yom Kippur War of 1973 that Israel’s military would fall from grace, not by a decisive defeat or loss of land, but more symbolically in the face of a somewhat attenuating Arab military resistance.

In 2006, Israeli forces launched an unforgiving attack on Hezbollah strongholds in Southern Lebanon responding to the abduction of IDF officers both in Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip. The savvy and unexpected resistance campaign orchestrated by Hezbollah fighters during the month-long war earned the group global recognition, with the group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah hailed a hero across the Muslim world.

While the Israeli government maintained that its heavy-handed response was warranted in the face of an Hezbollah uprising, the Jewish State received staunch criticism for use of unnecessarily brutal force which claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians. For Israel, the 2006 conflict bore scars far deeper than its government may have anticipated as the world watched Hezbollah fighters defiantly take on the 600-pound gorilla.

Today, Israel may have earned itself another reputation – not just as a military power, but one that might be considered particularly merciless.

The images of smoke plumes, destruction and death emanating from Gaza over the past few days are a somber reminder of the country’s 2006 clash with Hezbollah and the great reality that years of neglect are wearing heavily on any hope for Arab-Israeli peace. Israel’s deadly response on Hamas and residents of the Gaza Strip is increasingly looking like an attempt to regain an air of indestructibility, and less like a defense strategy. The embattled government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, still reeling from the ineffective military campaign of 2006, has but a few months left to salvage its reputation, as well as the beset image of Israel.

This point was illustrated in an analysis by Yossi Sarid, published over the weekend in Israel’s Haaretz Newspaper. Sarid wrote: “A million and a half human beings, most of them downcast and desperate refugees, live in the conditions of a giant jail, fertile ground for another round of bloodletting. The fact that Hamas may have gone too far with its rockets is not the justification of the Israeli policy for the past few decades, for which it justly merits an Iraqi shoe to the face.” [http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050451.html]

Gaza has already been shut to the outside world for some 19 months, making it more of an open-air prison for its 1.5 million residents. Now, according to international aid agency Oxfam, most humanitarian work in the territory has been forced to a standstill and a program that would feed 25,000 people had also been put on hold.

The repercussions of Israel’s retaliatory attack on Gaza this week may come back to haunt it if it does not show mercy in the face of a humanitarian disaster. With its message now reverberating across the Gaza Strip, Israel should halt all attacks and give Hamas a hard deadline for compliance.

They say in life, timing is everything. For Israel, the timing could not be more ideal to wage this unforgiving show of strength on Hamas and with it, residents of the Gaza Strip who, in early 2006, may have cast a vote for Hamas. For one, the military campaign came sandwiched in between Christmas and New Year celebrations when much of the Western world is off from work, away from their television sets, and unwilling to acknowledge any bad news that does not directly involve them.

Further, much of the world is now busy piecing together what is left of the global economy and Washington has entered a twilight period where neither the lame duck president nor the president-elect is willing to make any significant statements or policy decisions that may alienate the other. This latest eruption of violence in the Middle East sends President George W. Bush out the door, tail between his legs, with a staunch reminder of his failed promise to revitalize his “Roadmap to Peace” plan before the end of 2008.

President-elect Barack Obama, meanwhile, has a unique opportunity to make history in the Middle East, just as he made history at home. The road to fixing the diplomatic disaster created by the Bush Administration in Iraq runs through Jerusalem. This new outbreak of violence should, if nothing else, move the Arab-Israeli conflict back to the top of the incoming administration’s “things to fix in the Middle East” list. The first step toward winning the hearts and minds of people from Morocco to Pakistan lies in a fair and genuine solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Other Christmas Rush Is Christians Fleeing Arabia

 As always, I am eager to hear your thoughts!

By Vivian Salama

Newsweek

Jan 14, 2008 Issue 

Christmas is usually a time to celebrate the arrival of Christians in the Holy Land. But this year, as Patriarch Michel Sabbah of the Latin Rite Catholic Church revealed during his Christmas sermon in Bethlehem, local leaders are currently concerned with the opposite phenomenon: exodus. Speaking to the legions of Arab Christians fleeing the region, Sabbah said, “I say to you what Jesus told us: do not be afraid.”But there’s reason to be. Last year, dozens of Christians were slain in Iraq and a Syriac Orthodox priest was beheaded in Mosul. Two prominent Christian Palestinians were recently killed in Gaza. A political stalemate in Lebanon and the increased dominance of Shiite Hizbullah has made Maronites fear their traditional perks, like control of the presidency, are slipping. Even in Egypt, where religion has played little role in government, Christians now worry that the increasing popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood could lead to new restrictions.

Thus many are voting with their feet. There are now just 12 million to 15 million Arabic-speaking Christians left in the Middle East, and this could drop to 6 million by 2025. Countries are being transformed: in 1956, Lebanese Christians made up 54 percent of the country; today they’re about 30 percent. Iraq’s Christian population has fallen from 1.4 million in 1987 to 600,000 today. And Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, was 80 percent Christian when Israel won independence in 1948; now it’s 16 percent. Fred Strickert of Wartburg College estimates that hundreds of thousands of Christian Arabs have been displaced in the recent years, including half a million from Iraq alone. Christian Arabs emigration isn’t new. But according to Drew Christiansen, editor of America Magazine, the tide has increased since the second intifada in the Palestinian territories and the Iraq War. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute says most Christians chose to relocate to Europe and the Americas. Some 75 percent of the United States’ 3.5 million Middle Easterners are Christian, as are large slices in Canada, France, and Brazil. Many new exiles hope to relocate to the United States: no small irony given that the instability they’re fleeing was set in motion by the United States itself.

With the exodus, ancient practices and cultures are being lost, and Middle Eastern Christians risk eventually being “amalgamated into Western Christianity,” says Christiansen. The result will be “a dilution of the diversity of Christian traditions.” But given the life or death choices many Arab Christian emigrants now face, that looks like a small price to pay.

Absence of Courage

A Palestinian official argues that international donors are pledging millions to Gaza and the West Bank because they hope their generosity will compensate for their lack of political will.

Aid package: A Palestinian woman receives food handouts in Jenin

By Vivian Salama | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Dec 18, 2007

Amid international skepticism and ongoing regional tensions, 87 countries and international organizations have pledged $7.4 billion in aid to help build a Palestinian state. Monday’s Paris meeting of the donors comes on the heels of last month’s Annapolis talks, a White House effort to revitalize Israeli-Palestinian negotiations before the Bush administration leaves office. The money, which is expected to pass through various channels, including international aid organizations and the Palestinian government—that is, the government of Mahmoud Abbas and not the now-defunct Hamas-led government in Gaza—was donated in response to this week’s World Bank report, which noted that “even under the most optimistic scenarios significant aid will continue to be required” to ensure the economic stability of the West Bank and Gaza. Afif Safieh, a Palestinian diplomat who heads the Palestine Liberation Organization Mission in Washington, spoke to Vivian Salama about the likely impact of the aid package and the latest political developments in the Palestinian territories. Excerpts:
 
Vivian Salama: What is your reaction to the news of the aid package?
Afif Safieh: Since the international community did not show the political courage needed in Annapolis or in the pre-Annapolis period, which necessitated some confrontation with the Israeli territorial appetite, they are now showing financial generosity because of the absence of political audacity and political courage. They feel the collapse of the Palestinian society and the Palestinian economy will generate additional chaos to a region already plagued with it, so this is the result.
 
What is the alternative and/or the lacking initiative, in your opinion?
I would have preferred the political courage and the diplomatic courage which is needed to support the Palestinian state, but this would have meant a political confrontation with the Israeli political leadership. This is what countries in the international system want to avert. They compensate the lack of political courage with financial generosity. Now, the report made by the World Bank says that if the roadblocks and strangulation of [Palestinian] society and the economy of society continues, even with external financial help, our economy will continue to shrink and decline by 2 percent every year. We have the potential of going back to levels of growth which will be double digit if you give [us] the capability.
 
Do you see Israel as a partner?
The Israelis are until now reluctant to reduce the number of roadblocks, most of which have no security value except to plunge us into economic decline. Here I invite you to explore the expression that was originally coined by Sarah Roy, a Jewish-American writer, the daughter of survivors, a Harvard scholar, who invented the concept of de-development of Palestine—meaning that the deliberate Israeli policy [was] to plunge us into economic decline, and that’s what’s happening.
 
The Bush administration—namely [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice—has pledged its devotion to the creation of a Palestinian state before the end of its term. Are you optimistic, and is this new aid package what is needed to get this process off the ground?
I believe in the sincerity of President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I find the statement made by Secretary Rice that the creation of a Palestinian state is an American national interest [is] an important political statement which reflects the reality of the analysis by a growing body. I believe Bush when he told President Mahmoud Abbas in New York in September [that Bush] is growing increasingly impatient by the absence of progress. Since we have been unreasonably reasonable, I don’t think his impatience is addressed to my side of the argument. The question is will [Bush and Rice] vent their annoyance with the obstacle towards advance. Unfortunately so far there is no indication. Not only did the Israelis invest all their genius to lower expectations in the weeks that preceded Annapolis, but immediately after Annapolis they invested all their brilliance into torpedoing the modest results that emerged. Annapolis was supposed to retrigger a credible diplomatic avenue.
 
Does the aid package at least make you optimistic?
We are often asked, “Are you optimistic or pessimistic?” Even though I don’t feel we Palestinians have the luxury of pessimism, even though I believe that it’s only optimists who make history, I am often reminded that the definition of a pessimist is an informed optimist.
 
The World Bank has just released a detailed account on the dire economic conditions in Gaza and the West Bank. How would you describe the situation in [Hamas-controlled] Gaza?
A stain on the conscience of mankind. I read [the World Bank] report on Gaza: the inadmissible, the inconceivable is perpetrated on a daily basis. The Israelis withdrew out of Gaza yet besieged Gaza immediately, turning it into an open-air prison. They withdrew out of Gaza in order to improve their grip on the West Bank. [Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon never concealed that aim.
 
Some see this aid package as a victory for the Palestinian cause.
It shows the reservoir of goodwill and the diplomatic and universal unanimity the birth of a Palestinian state enjoys. Yet I am today more worried by the political impotence that we have witnessed throughout the decades. I believe peace is desirable, possible, doable yesterday already! As is frequently said, every possible scenario alternative and their opposite have been explored ad nauseam. I always tell Israelis that a territory that was occupied in six days can also be evacuated in six days, so that they can rest on the seventh and we can engage in the fascinating journey of economic development and reconstruction. It’s the absence of the political will that is disturbing.

Click here for the Newsweek.com link.

Can Hamas be Ignored?

by Vivian Salama

Middle East Times

Middle East author and historian Rashid Khalidi offered the following forecast for Tuesday’s peace gathering in Annapolis, “Cloudy with rain and a chance of storms.” He added, “That’s been the Middle East forecast for decades.”

The media has been criticized for its relentless skepticism of the “get together” – as one White House official described it – taking place in Maryland this week. For many, this multilateral gathering of more than two dozen delegations to discuss the Palestinian-Israeli issue is merely history repeating itself. In 2000, just as President Clinton was preparing to leave office, he invited the then-embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his beleaguered Palestinian counterpart Yasser Arafat together at Camp David to negotiate a final settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Seven years later, a politically besieged President George W. Bush has invited Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas – both of whom are fighting to stay for political survival – to make long overdue concessions and revitalize final status talks. Photo-ops and cliché catch phrases like “Road Map to Peace” will not undo the decades of damage this conflict has inflicted upon both sides. Israel’s Prime Minster Olmert has lost considerable support in Israel following his futile military campaign against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. President Abbas comes to the table representing a government that was not democratically elected by the majority of Palestinians, and so by attending the meeting – all the while further alienating Hamas which essentially rules over Gaza – he may be doing himself more harm than good.

Meanwhile, since September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has been preoccupied with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the greater War on Terrorism, all the while neglecting this conflict which continues to be a source, if not a consistent grievance for much of the Middle East and the Muslim world. The War on Terrorism ultimately amounts to a war of ideas. To win the war of ideas, the U.S. must take genuine steps toward solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. That’s where Annapolis comes in.

British-Arab historian Albert Habib Hourani wrote shortly into the Suez Crisis of 1956 that “[He] who rules the Near East rules the world; and he who has interest in the world is bound to concern itself with the Near East.” With just over one year left on the clock, the administration, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has put considerable time and energy in recent months into assuring both sides that it is committed to finding a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. How the Bush administration intends to help foster the creation of a Palestinian state when neither the United States nor Israel recognize Hamas – elected democratically by the Palestinian people in January 2006 – has yet to be determined.

Much of the talk leading up to this meeting has revolved around the idea of concessions. Such a compromise would include full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank with the exception of a few areas amounting to minor border tweaks. Control of the city of Jerusalem would be shared along ethnic lines with commitments from both sides to strive for peaceful coexistence.

A positive aspect to staging the Annapolis gathering at this particular time is that the stakes are high for all the major players involved. The Bush administration, desperate to establish any kind of credibility in the region, knows that the road to fixing the diplomatic disaster created in Iraq runs through Jerusalem. Also, many Israelis, tired of the same old tug-of-war that has dictated the conflict, are pressing for the old “land for peace” notion that has popped up repeatedly in various peace processes involving Israel. Abbas and his Fatah party understand that a failure to achieve a final settlement for the majority of Palestinians will undermine the credibility he is struggling to retain in the face of Hamas. More poignant is that the United States and Israel understand this too.

Ultimately it is not what comes out of the meeting in Annapolis that will be telling, but rather, what is to follow. If the meeting can jump start a series of talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then hope is not lost. However, it is unrealistic to think that anything will be accomplished so long as the parties involved continue to isolate Hamas.

Give and Take Can Strengthen Moderates

Washington Post/Newsweek – PostGlobal   

by Vivian Salama

The question facing the South Korean government, like many governments before it, is simple: does negotiating with terrorists excuse – or even encourage – violence?

(Above: South Korean hostages released by Taliban)

It is very difficult to call any negotiation “insensible” if it spares hostages’ lives, but the circumstances vary drastically in each case. To consolidate this response, I will treat all “terrorists” as one – though we can certainly break down the meaning of “terrorist” and further complicate a complex matter.

Western democracies’ logic is essentially never to bow down to violence, nor to reward terrorists for using it. But this is easier said than done. Governments have historically turned to terrorist organizations to further their political agendas. Israel signed the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinian Liberation Organization even though the PLO was considered a terrorist organization and refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Years earlier, the Jewish State also allowed Hamas to operate unhindered during the first Intifada in hopes that it would challenge, and weaken, the authority of Yasser Arafat. As a result, Israel faced a stronger Hamas during the Second Intifada.

More recently, Israel and the West have been criticized for resisting any kind of negotiation with Hamas after the group won an unprecedented victory in the January 2006 elections. This is a government democratically elected by the people of the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem. By refusing categorically to negotiate with that government, Western governments and Israel risk undermining the democratic process that they – particularly the Bush Administration – have worked to establish in the region.

Refusing any and all negotiation eliminates the chance of finding common ground. On the other hand, agreeing to negotiate is often a bargaining tool, one that can stem violence and will often lead to a ceasefire. A classic example of such fruitful negotiation is the IRA’s 2005 pledge to end violence in its fight for a united Ireland. It was a lesson in persistence and persuasion by a government actor – in this case, the British government – in helping a terrorist organization consider peaceful alternatives.

Such an option may seem overly optimistic given the current climate in the “War Against Terror.” But a categorical refusal to negotiate can cloud the real issues at hand, leaving room for terrorists and their supporters to accuse the opposing government of undemocratic, oppressive or dictatorial practices.

Agreeing to negotiate often means taking the much longer view toward the immediate issue. In a 1998 interview with the Paris-based news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski insisted that the Carter Administration should not regret supporting Afghanistan’s Islamic fundamentalists in the late 1970s. He asked, “What is more important to the history of the world – the Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Or consider North Korea, which is reportedly coming off the list of “terrorist” countries. It will be interesting to see what effect that has on North Koreans’ attitudes toward the United States, and whether it helps to speed up denuclearization. Of course, none of this would have happened without negotiation.

There’s no question that negotiations are give-and-take; nothing is guaranteed. In Hamas’ case, there was no way to tell whether, given Hamas’ political inexperience, negotiating with Western leaders might have strengthened the group’s moderate wing. These terrorist groups often lack internal cohesion. Given the opportunity, governments that are willing to negotiate may make considerably more progress by getting a foot in the door than by completely shutting terrorists groups out.

Hamas butts heads with local media

Vivian Salama
Middle East Times

 

RAMALLAH –  At least seven Palestinian journalists have reported receiving alleged death threats for their scrutinizing coverage of the Hamas government. According to the Palestinian Journalists’ Union, the threats – received by telephone, e-mail and fax – were said to be signed by Hamas.In the embattled Palestinian territories, leeway for journalists to report has been impeded in the past. A number of reporters were reportedly beaten for reproachful coverage in the past, and in 2004, a journalist who ran a government-funded magazine was killed.Parliamentarians say that further development of the Palestinian owned-and-operated media is a priority as it serves as the mouthpiece for the ruling party and a barometer for the political struggle with Israel.

Under Palestinian law the president remains the highest authority over the public media. Fatah officials are concerned, however, that when President Mahmoud Abbas must go through parliament to pass any legislation related to the media, his minority faction will not be able to get a word in edgewise.“There will probably be a struggle,” admits Palestine’s former deputy prime minister and minister of information Nabil Shaath. “I think Hamas will try to take over the radio and television from the president. Even when the president tries to implement laws, these will be stopped by parliament if Hamas doesn’t like them.”“There is really a great deal of uncertainty thus far,” says Ziad Abu Amr, an independent MP from Gaza. “The media is a tool in the struggle. This is a national struggle and so we mustn’t air just any programming in haste.”The Hamas-run parliament is currently forced to convene in split sessions. Prime Minister Ismail Haniya had to address his Ramallah-based cabinet from Gaza via satellite uplink. Resembling a businessman more than militant leader, Haniya admits that a cut in aid will be detrimental to the prosperity of Palestine, but emphasizes that the new government will not bow to foreign pressure.The victory of Hamas, deemed a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, instantly threatened Palestine’s flow of financial aid. Nearly $2 billion of the Palestinian Authority’s (PA’s) annual budget comes from overseas sources, the majority from the European Union (EU).In April the US agreed to provide some $245 million in response to the growing humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories – the money would be distributed through the United Nations and other non-Palestinian NGOs. Most surprising, however, was an undertaking by the EU to send $143 million in emergency aid to the PA.

A portion of the EU aid package to Palestine goes to funding its state-run media. A far cry from the often militant programming that defined Palestinian media in the days of the Intifada, today’s Palestinian media – made up of some 80 networks – risks being silenced more so by financial loses than by the bullets that continue to be exchanged with the state of Israel.

“From the first days of the intifada in October 2000, Palestinian TV canceled all regular programming,” recalls Itamar Marcus, director of the ringwing Israeli group Palestinian Media Watch. “It was a nonstop war atmosphere with one-two-three clips encouraging young kid to be shaheed [martyrs]. Since the elections, we’ve seen a rise in violent clips – clips with a little more hatred in the messages being broadcast.”

During the second intifada Palestinian media centers in Gaza and the West Bank often served as targets for the Israeli military. In February 2002, for example, Israeli soldiers left retaliatory explosives in the Ramallah-based Palestinian Broadcasting Company (PBC) headquarters following a deadly massacre on Jewish guests at a Bat Mitzvah in Hadera. Several floors of the building were destroyed and the PBC was blown off the air.

One week after the attack, PBC’s deputy coordinator Maher Al Rayyes was the first to broadcast a message during experimental transmissions.

“Sons of Arafat know very well how to start from nothing; no one will mute the Palestinian voice,” he said.

Palestinians would go a step further, substituting regular programming with public service announcements promoting the glories of martyrdom. Commercials called out to children to, in one instance, “drop your toys; pick up rocks”. Such messages would peter out by the end of 2004, though critics believe that they have the potential to resurrect with the succession of the Hamas-run government.

“By the time of the elections, Palestinian television was showing more variety – children’s programs, sports,” says Marcus. “Now so-called education programs dealing with ‘historical’ [issues] are bringing academics talking about why Israel has no right to the land, about the delegitimization of Israel.”

“We want to establish a framework that television is not just entertainment, but to educate the people,” says Ghazi Hamed, editor-in-chief for Hamas’s Al Resala (the Message) newspaper and spokesman for the Islamic resistance movement.

“It’s a cultural weapon. It talks of our morals, of our national struggle against Israel.”

Meanwhile, just as the PA under Fatah was plagued by corruption, rumors of wrong-doing behind the scenes of the state-run media have long cast a shadow of doubt over its integrity.With the chairs in parliament still warm from the former government, Hamas is already butting heads with the local media. This week, a number of Palestinian journalists complained of alleged death threats for reporting critical evaluations of the new government since it assumed power in March.Previously known more for its militant calls for the destruction of Israel, Hamas must urgently seek a balance between its hardliner political agenda and its social responsibility to the people of Palestine. Officials with the new government believe that it is by well-equipping Palestine’s media arsenal that it will gain an advantage in their struggle to create a nation.

“It is not to our advantage to broadcast messages against Israel or America,” notes Youssef Rezqa, Palestine’s new minister of information under Hamas. “We want to correct the international image of Hamas through the media. There is so much about Hamas that has been forgotten because of this political panic.”

Islam is the Solution

Hamas gains ground in historic Palestinian vote

By Vivian Salama

Daily Star Egypt

January 26, 2006

EAST JERUSALEM:  Across from the Damascus Wall on Salah El Din Street in East Jerusalem – the city’s Arab section – journalists and television cameras surround a young man as he professes in broken English his desire for peace, and greater opportunity for the Palestinians. 

            “I hope one day we live together – peace, no killing,” said Atef Badran, 22, outside the main polling station in East Jerusalem. 

            After getting their soundbite, the cameras leave.  Realizing that I speak Arabic, Badran looks around as though to ensure that they’d all gone away.  Then he continues.

            “The only answer for peace, for change for the Palestinians, is for Hamas to take control,” he says, almost whispering.  “They are not criminals.  They are not warriors.  We’ve seen what Fatah can and cannot do.  Hamas is the best representation of the Palestinians and the only ones who can make a difference in the lives of those who need in the most.”     

            Early opinion polls leading up to yesterday’s historic election – the first in which Hamas participates – indicated that the militant Islamic group might walk away with as much as 40 percent of the newly-expanded 132-seat legislature, on the tail of the ruling Fatah party, under Abbas.  Concerns are high among Israelis, as well as neighboring countries with moderate, secular governments – such as Egypt and Jordan – that an Islamic stronghold in the Palestinian parliament might further aggravate decades of tension. 

            Voting in East Jerusalem has been a point of contention between Palestinian and Israeli authorities as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas threatened to postpone elections should the city’s 3 million Palestinians be barred from voting.  Last week, Israel’s cabinet, under acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, voted unanimously to allow voting in East Jerusalem, though Hamas was banned from campaigning there. 

“Don’t think that just because they prohibited Hamas from campaigning here that they have no representation – on the contrary, the Arabs of Jerusalem support Hamas,” added Badran.  “People around the Arab world are realizing the benefits of having Islamists in control.”   

            Indeed, the campaign slogan “Islam is the Solution” has gained ground outside of the Palestinian territories as well.  Just over a month ago, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood saw unprecedented gains in parliamentary elections, winning 88 of Egypt’s 144-elected seats.  Running under the slogan “Islam is the solution,” independent candidates supported by a reformed Muslim Brotherhood, relied less on touting Islamic ideologies of shar’ia law, and more on the basic principles of government and humanity. 

            “The major concern now is that the gains of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the first time participation by Hamas might enhance other Islamic movements,” explains Khaled Dozdar, head of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information in Jerusalem.  “The whole region is experiencing this.  They are bringing dogmatism to the region via another form of tyranny – dogma, not just to the peace process, but to the socio-economic level.  The only side to blame for this is the authorities because this is the complete result of years of neglect and misuse of power.”

            “For me, it isn’t about voting for Hamas, it’s about a change of power,” says Adel Adwayat, a native of Jerusalem.  “I think that just like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas will grow in strength because they are working a real political campaign, not a campaign of fear as they have done in the past.”

            During the first intifadad, Hamas was founded in the Gaza Strip in 1987 as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The group’s military wing dedicated itself to the destruction of the State of Israel.  When the group rejected the Oslo Accords, however, it opened the door for Fatah to engage in dialogue with the West.  It is the rejection of the Oslo Accords and firm stance against Israel that some experts believed actually boosted Hamas’s support in the region.

            “The people are comforted knowing that Hamas is political active,” says Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, Essam Al-Arian.  “We support all the Palestinian people.  This is not an ordinary election because it will decide the fate of this conflict.  Everyone will see that the Palestinians support the Resistance Group, not the corrupted one.  The people are comforted knowing that Hamas is politically active.” 

            Despite their reputation for militant activity, Hamas is active on the community level, running preschools, youth clubs, and health clinics.  It has regularly provided financial assistance to the needy people of Palestine.  Despite their civic contributions, however, Egyptian officials have adamantly supported the ruling Fatah party as some fear Hamas might benefit from the vulnerability of the Gaza Strip following the withdrawal of the Israeli military last August. 

“Total chaos will equally affect the two neighboring countries – Egypt and Jordan, as well as Israel,” says Dozdar.

“Hamas was not born yesterday – Israel is showing they are afraid for nothing,” insists Mohammed Asem Ibrahim, Egypt’s Ambassador to Israel.  “At the same time, if Hamas does interfere in the process taking place these coming days, then of course, Israel has a point to say that there are no partners for peace here.  And it is the responsibility of Egypt and Jordan, given their peace treaties with Israel, that they play a role in this process.”

More than 35 delegates have been sent from Egypt to monitor the electoral process in the West Bank and Gaza.  Last year, some 500 international monitors traveled to the Palestinian territories to monitor the first presidential elections since the death of longtime leader, Yasser Arafat.  Egyptians hold a stake in overseeing the withdrawal and rebuilding of the Gaza Strip, as lax security and governing could expose the Sinai to exported fundamentalism.  Still, with poverty and lagging revitalization in Gaza, many believe it will boost Hamas’s reputation among Palestinians as the people’s party.          

“Remember, the enemy of our enemy is our friend,” notes Al-Arian.  “I think Israel’s restriction against Hamas will only add to their power and popularity.”