Tweet
Asharq Alawsat, UK
Hamas and Raising Slogans
05/07/2008
Are there any social or ideological slogans that have not been
contaminated by political calculations at some point during the
process? Can one claim that holy or profane action exists in politics
or is politics another field altogether where morality and principles
do not apply? Everybody claims to be a person of principle and to
have political prestige whilst practicing politics, which is immersed
in the calculations and tactics of loss and gain.
Let us look at take some of the numerous examples; Hamas, for
instance, from the outset has acted as a representative of Palestinian
purity in the world of resistance and as a divine representative of
the Palestinian cause. From the beginning, Hamas suggested that it was
different and superior to the stupidity of Palestinian struggle
movements that deal with the cause from an earthly perspective in
contrast to Hamas, which deals with matters from a celestial
standpoint and with a pure soul, in the words of Abdullah Azzam who
was one of the founders of Hezbollah and who wrote `Hamas: Historical
Roots and the Charter.' For a long time, Hamas continued to use this
kind of discourse, benefiting from the pure revolutionary portrayal of
its symbols such as that of Yahya Ayyash, nicknamed `the Engineer',
who became a legend as he wore his Palestinian keffiyeh and deceived
the Israeli enemy. This is the case with every `pure' movement that
must create its own legends and symbols.
After the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the Fatah movement
returned to Gaza and the West Bank through the Oslo Accords (1993),
and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas further
elucidated its distinction from the contaminated political course and
stressed its loyalty to the pure Islamic Palestinian revolution and
not to the Fatah revolution and secular movements that lack the light
of religion. Hamas played the role of the armed opponent that stood
against any agreement or negotiation reached by the Palestinian
Authority with the Israelis, accusing Arafat's associates of being
traitors and guardians of Israeli security.
Not long after its victory in the legislative elections in January
2006 and its assumption of the premiership with President Mahmoud
Abbas, who sponsors negotiation and peace with Israel; Hamas executed
a coup and took over Gaza based on the pretext of purity of the
revolution. After a change in circumstances since Hamas now has real
power in its hands and Olmert's government has shown determination in
carrying out a strong military strike against the state of Hamas in
Gaza, Said Siyam, Hamas Interior Minister and strongman, threatened
Fatah's groups that launched rockets into Israeli settlements. Those
who launched rockets against Israel, who were formerly known as
`Mujahideen' in the language of Hamas, are now harmful to national
interests. Siyam was praised by the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud
Barak for his rationality.
Has the government of Hamas taken over the role of Israel's guardian
from Fatah?
The truth is that Hamas does not protect Israel just as Fatah never
acted as a guard for Israel. These are smear campaigns aimed at
embarrassing and tarnishing the opponent. These are accusations of
`morality' in a world of politics that is only concerned with
interests as mentioned before.
As such, Syria, the country of resistance, which described its
opponents in Arab countries as `products of Israel' and not real men,
is today `trotting' towards Israel, in the words of Nizar Qabbani and
other Arab intellects and writers who today remain silent over Syria's
dash. This can all be understood under the banner of `political
deceit' that is common in our Arab region. The same can be said about
Iran and the Khomeini revolution, which accuses whoever merely
mentions America or Israel in public, and stirs up conflict everywhere
based on this and underhandedly does everything that is dictated to it
by Iranian interests but uses a different language with the West
during roundtable discussions.
Neither Syria nor Hamas nor Iran is blamed if `morality' plays a part
in their political discourse and if they follow the concepts of good
and evil and right and wrong in achieving their political
interests. Instead it is those who believe the propaganda and in the
sincerity of politics and politicians towards moral content who are
blamed. All countries, organizations and parties ?' from America in
the West to our flourishing countries and parties in the Middle East
to the East where the former Soviet Union that once preoccupied the
world with its slogans about social justice and the workers'
revolution ?' did not in any way share this kind of extremism
whereby state interests were endangered.
It is a historical common practice that political interests are
prioritized before raising any slogans regardless of what they
represent. The more that this or that party or state talks about
slogans the more one should realize that this clamor merely conceals
another movement that contradicts these slogans!
Historically speaking, we can find a lot of evidence that verifies
this everlasting truth that interests are more important than
slogans. When the Ayyubid ruler Al Kamil (1180-1238) conflicted with
his brothers Al Muazzam and Al Ashraf, the nephews of Salahuddin, over
power of course, Al Kamil sought the help of the crusade emperor
Fredrick II at the expense of his brothers. The deal involved the
Muslim king ceding Jerusalem to Frederick II. According to historians,
the two leaders reached a deal in 1229.
When Andalusia was on the verge of falling as a result of the
devastating military campaigns launched by Christian rulers in Spain
before the fall of Granada in 1492, the Muslims of Andalusia quickly
turned towards the Ottomans and Mamluks in Istanbul and Cairo for help
after they had lost all hope in the exhausted countries of the Arab
Maghreb. The Sultan of the Mamluks did nothing but send a threatening
message to King Ferdinand whilst the Ottoman sultan apologized as he
was preoccupied with his war with his Mamluk opponents who threatened
his kingdom, and his dissident brother. He was satisfied with sending
a few ships to take part in a fruitless military skirmish. Meanwhile,
some European kings stood by the Ottoman sultan during his wars
against some emirates or European kings in the hope that they would
benefit or out of fear that they were also under threat; in either
case, it was in their interest to take part.
If we look at modern history, Iran relinquished its support of some
groups in the Gulf after it saw that there were no benefits in having
tense relations with some of the Gulf countries; it left those who
believed in the purity of its slogans to meet their fate. Perhaps this
is what will happen to some of those who raise the revolutionary
slogans of Iran today if the Iranian state sees that its interests lie
in deactivating or changing these slogans. When a conflict erupted
between the government of Azerbaijan and the Armenian secessionists,
the Iranian government stood by the Armenian Christian movement
against the Azerbaijani government that represents a nation with a
Shia majority. The reason behind this is that Iran took its own
interests into consideration.
Every revolution or political moral movement begins vigorously and
defiantly, eradicating anything in its path that advocates a different
discourse because it is a movement that wants to wipe the slate clean
and establish a new dynamic in history. Then after the waves of the
revolution settle within the core of society and within the contents
of political and economic daily activity, the revolution is tamed and
becomes a domesticated horse upon which the state rides led by
interests, the calculation of loss and gain and so on and so forth.
Does this mean that the concept of morality and principles does not
exist in politics? Does this also mean that all politicians belong to
one sect? Not exactly; political movements and orientations are
ultimately expressions of the culture and thoughts of a society. For
example it is impossible to imagine a Marxist movement succeeding in
ruling the United States or that a movement that is hostile towards
religion could rule in the countries of the Arabian Peninsula or in
many other Arab countries.
The idea is that politics, regardless of the society, culture or
identity in which it exists has its own language and calculations. The
language that is uses may vary and examples of craftiness are
numerous; yet the result is always the same. As long as there are
those who will raise slogans, the political fire, which always wants
more, will continue to burn.
Hamas and Raising Slogans
05/07/2008
Are there any social or ideological slogans that have not been
contaminated by political calculations at some point during the
process? Can one claim that holy or profane action exists in politics
or is politics another field altogether where morality and principles
do not apply? Everybody claims to be a person of principle and to
have political prestige whilst practicing politics, which is immersed
in the calculations and tactics of loss and gain.
Let us look at take some of the numerous examples; Hamas, for
instance, from the outset has acted as a representative of Palestinian
purity in the world of resistance and as a divine representative of
the Palestinian cause. From the beginning, Hamas suggested that it was
different and superior to the stupidity of Palestinian struggle
movements that deal with the cause from an earthly perspective in
contrast to Hamas, which deals with matters from a celestial
standpoint and with a pure soul, in the words of Abdullah Azzam who
was one of the founders of Hezbollah and who wrote `Hamas: Historical
Roots and the Charter.' For a long time, Hamas continued to use this
kind of discourse, benefiting from the pure revolutionary portrayal of
its symbols such as that of Yahya Ayyash, nicknamed `the Engineer',
who became a legend as he wore his Palestinian keffiyeh and deceived
the Israeli enemy. This is the case with every `pure' movement that
must create its own legends and symbols.
After the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the Fatah movement
returned to Gaza and the West Bank through the Oslo Accords (1993),
and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas further
elucidated its distinction from the contaminated political course and
stressed its loyalty to the pure Islamic Palestinian revolution and
not to the Fatah revolution and secular movements that lack the light
of religion. Hamas played the role of the armed opponent that stood
against any agreement or negotiation reached by the Palestinian
Authority with the Israelis, accusing Arafat's associates of being
traitors and guardians of Israeli security.
Not long after its victory in the legislative elections in January
2006 and its assumption of the premiership with President Mahmoud
Abbas, who sponsors negotiation and peace with Israel; Hamas executed
a coup and took over Gaza based on the pretext of purity of the
revolution. After a change in circumstances since Hamas now has real
power in its hands and Olmert's government has shown determination in
carrying out a strong military strike against the state of Hamas in
Gaza, Said Siyam, Hamas Interior Minister and strongman, threatened
Fatah's groups that launched rockets into Israeli settlements. Those
who launched rockets against Israel, who were formerly known as
`Mujahideen' in the language of Hamas, are now harmful to national
interests. Siyam was praised by the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud
Barak for his rationality.
Has the government of Hamas taken over the role of Israel's guardian
from Fatah?
The truth is that Hamas does not protect Israel just as Fatah never
acted as a guard for Israel. These are smear campaigns aimed at
embarrassing and tarnishing the opponent. These are accusations of
`morality' in a world of politics that is only concerned with
interests as mentioned before.
As such, Syria, the country of resistance, which described its
opponents in Arab countries as `products of Israel' and not real men,
is today `trotting' towards Israel, in the words of Nizar Qabbani and
other Arab intellects and writers who today remain silent over Syria's
dash. This can all be understood under the banner of `political
deceit' that is common in our Arab region. The same can be said about
Iran and the Khomeini revolution, which accuses whoever merely
mentions America or Israel in public, and stirs up conflict everywhere
based on this and underhandedly does everything that is dictated to it
by Iranian interests but uses a different language with the West
during roundtable discussions.
Neither Syria nor Hamas nor Iran is blamed if `morality' plays a part
in their political discourse and if they follow the concepts of good
and evil and right and wrong in achieving their political
interests. Instead it is those who believe the propaganda and in the
sincerity of politics and politicians towards moral content who are
blamed. All countries, organizations and parties ?' from America in
the West to our flourishing countries and parties in the Middle East
to the East where the former Soviet Union that once preoccupied the
world with its slogans about social justice and the workers'
revolution ?' did not in any way share this kind of extremism
whereby state interests were endangered.
It is a historical common practice that political interests are
prioritized before raising any slogans regardless of what they
represent. The more that this or that party or state talks about
slogans the more one should realize that this clamor merely conceals
another movement that contradicts these slogans!
Historically speaking, we can find a lot of evidence that verifies
this everlasting truth that interests are more important than
slogans. When the Ayyubid ruler Al Kamil (1180-1238) conflicted with
his brothers Al Muazzam and Al Ashraf, the nephews of Salahuddin, over
power of course, Al Kamil sought the help of the crusade emperor
Fredrick II at the expense of his brothers. The deal involved the
Muslim king ceding Jerusalem to Frederick II. According to historians,
the two leaders reached a deal in 1229.
When Andalusia was on the verge of falling as a result of the
devastating military campaigns launched by Christian rulers in Spain
before the fall of Granada in 1492, the Muslims of Andalusia quickly
turned towards the Ottomans and Mamluks in Istanbul and Cairo for help
after they had lost all hope in the exhausted countries of the Arab
Maghreb. The Sultan of the Mamluks did nothing but send a threatening
message to King Ferdinand whilst the Ottoman sultan apologized as he
was preoccupied with his war with his Mamluk opponents who threatened
his kingdom, and his dissident brother. He was satisfied with sending
a few ships to take part in a fruitless military skirmish. Meanwhile,
some European kings stood by the Ottoman sultan during his wars
against some emirates or European kings in the hope that they would
benefit or out of fear that they were also under threat; in either
case, it was in their interest to take part.
If we look at modern history, Iran relinquished its support of some
groups in the Gulf after it saw that there were no benefits in having
tense relations with some of the Gulf countries; it left those who
believed in the purity of its slogans to meet their fate. Perhaps this
is what will happen to some of those who raise the revolutionary
slogans of Iran today if the Iranian state sees that its interests lie
in deactivating or changing these slogans. When a conflict erupted
between the government of Azerbaijan and the Armenian secessionists,
the Iranian government stood by the Armenian Christian movement
against the Azerbaijani government that represents a nation with a
Shia majority. The reason behind this is that Iran took its own
interests into consideration.
Every revolution or political moral movement begins vigorously and
defiantly, eradicating anything in its path that advocates a different
discourse because it is a movement that wants to wipe the slate clean
and establish a new dynamic in history. Then after the waves of the
revolution settle within the core of society and within the contents
of political and economic daily activity, the revolution is tamed and
becomes a domesticated horse upon which the state rides led by
interests, the calculation of loss and gain and so on and so forth.
Does this mean that the concept of morality and principles does not
exist in politics? Does this also mean that all politicians belong to
one sect? Not exactly; political movements and orientations are
ultimately expressions of the culture and thoughts of a society. For
example it is impossible to imagine a Marxist movement succeeding in
ruling the United States or that a movement that is hostile towards
religion could rule in the countries of the Arabian Peninsula or in
many other Arab countries.
The idea is that politics, regardless of the society, culture or
identity in which it exists has its own language and calculations. The
language that is uses may vary and examples of craftiness are
numerous; yet the result is always the same. As long as there are
those who will raise slogans, the political fire, which always wants
more, will continue to burn.