Go straight here. Read why Eyad Sarraj, a dedicated children’s psychiatrist, human rights activist, and the director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, titled this op-ed piece, This time, I’m hopeful.
By the way, I hope you got the chance to go over and read my CSM column, Thursday. The title of that one was, Hope takes root, again, in Mideast.
Sarraj writes of a recent encounter he had with the press:
- “Do you really trust Hamas to stop terror?” one of the journalists asked me. “Even when they announce that they are not bound by the agreement?”
To his obvious shock I replied, “Yes.”
I have spent many years observing Hamas at close range as it has grown from a small Islamic religious movement into a major army. I have been debating politics with its leaders and members for a long, long time. That experience leads me to believe that Hamas will very soon transform into a political party and will seriously contemplate taking over the government by democratic means.
There are sound reasons for my optimism. The first is that Hamas finally has an incentive to halt terrorist activity. For years, its raison d’etre has been military action. But Hamas has just achieved an astounding victory in municipal elections in the Gaza Strip, winning 70 percent of the seats in local councils. Fatah, the ruling party that had long dominated the political scene, was roundly defeated. Hamas has a guaranteed political future when it chooses to abandon the armed struggle.
Furthermore, close observers have noted important signs of change within Hamas over time. From remarks made by its spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, before his assassination last year, we understand that Hamas is now prepared to accept a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And as the recent elections showed, Hamas now participates fully in the democratic process — something that it once called a Western conspiracy, and even a sin.
Hamas is becoming more organized, more sophisticated and more confident in itself. For example, in the first intifada, Hamas was quick to charge people with collaboration with Israel and to kill them. That was a sign of insecurity. The Hamas of today pledges not to kill fellow Palestinians, but instead urges the Palestinian Authority to enforce its laws.
Sarraj says he sees reasons for optimism on the Israeli side, as well:
- To illustrate, I concluded my remarks to the journalists with a small story:
Not long ago, I was stopped at a Gaza border crossing along with some colleagues. Inside the fortified post was an Israeli soldier, his face appearing every few minutes through a small opening in the concrete. To my surprise he called me over to ask, “Your friend says you are a psychiatrist. Can I ask you something?” “Yes,” I replied warily. The soldier said, “I have a problem, doctor. I live in a settlement in Hebron, and I want to leave.”
I hid my surprise and played the psychiatrist, listening calmly as this young man with his baby face and thin beard continued: “My parents want me to stay, but I know it will only lead to more killing. I don’t like it there, but I don’t want to anger my father and mother who have given their lives for me.”
After a moment, I said, “I think it is best if you talk about your feelings with your mother and your father. It will be best if you convince them of your decision. But I want to tell you something else, my friend.” The soldier smiled in anticipation as I continued: “By choosing to talk to me about yourself, you made me feel proud of humanity and sure of its future.” He stretched his arm through the hole to shake my hand, saying, “I trust you.”
Eyad Sarraj is someone whose judgment (and vision) I trust a lot, too.
Last year in February, I tried to go to Gaza. (You can read about some of my adventures in that regard here, or here.) I wanted to go there because Gaza is home to some extraordinary courageous and visionary Palestinian social activists, of whom Eyad is definitely one.
Well, the IDF never let me in.
Now, I’m aching to try to get back there again. But I totally need to finish my Africa book first!!!
The more I think about the situation, though, the more I think I’m on to something by saying that Hamas and Hizbullah have been following extremely similar political paths. In so many ways, both in how they pursue their domestic-level politics and in how they have pursued a “two-track” approach to the confrontation with Israel.
I see that “two-track” approach as roughly analogous to the ANC’s, in South Africa. That is, not to eschew armed struggle completely until they get to the point where the acceptable final-status agreement with the oppressor/ oppenent is finally reached; but along the way there, to place ever-increasing emphasis on using non-violent methods of struggle backed up by extremely impressive and resilient mass organizing…
I do see one possible, and significant, difference between Hizbullah and Hamas, however. That concerns how the two organizations seem to see the status of Israel (within its pre-1967 boundaries.) Hamas has increasingly moved to a point of readiness to accept the existence of Israel within its pre-1967 borders– and note that Sarraj attributed that shift in part to Ahmad Yassin. Hizbullah, however, has generally seemed unready until now to “concede” Israel’s right to exist.
But, and this is a key caveat, Hizbullah’s leaders have always claimed that what happens south of the Lebanese-Israeli border is up to their Palestinian “brothers” to decide. So while they may have their own point of view on whether Israel has a right to exist or not, and they might even try to persuade Palestinians of the correctness of their view, at the end of the day they will probably be prepared to defer on this matter to the judgment of any Palestinian leadership that they judge to be legitimate.
And yes, that would almost certainly include Hamas.
This past week, the Israeli hasbara (PSYOPS) folks have been trying to stir up a firestorm of anti-Hizbullah activity. Their FM, Silvan Shalom, has been in France, trying to lobby the French to put Hizbullah on their “terrorist” list. Those wellknown experts on Palestinian affairs (!) who work at the Jerusalem Post are reporting that “PA security officials” fear a Hizbullah assassination attack against Abu Mazen. Etc., etc.
Hizbullah is pretty expert at PSYOPS and media operations, too. Today, their deputy Secretary-General, Naim Kassem told Reuters’ Lucy Fielding that,
- Reports from Israeli and Palestinian officials earlier this week that Syrian and Iranian-backed Hizbollah was trying to recruit Palestinian militants to destroy new peace efforts were baseless…
“They show the existence of an Israeli cell working to spread such ideas before Israeli actions to destroy the truce by repeated aggressions against the Palestinians,” he said…
He denied the group was trying to harm an Israeli- Palestinian truce announced in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh this week, already punctured by militant attacks.
“We say over and over again that we are not concerned with the details of what the Palestinians do, whether they resist or not or whether they call a truce or not.
“It must be clear to all that it is the Palestinian people who are fighting and resisting and it was they who created this uprising and can clearly manage their own affairs.”
Well, I’ve had both Hamas and Hizbullah on my mind, as you can see.
Hamas, because of the big story of the ceasefire that has been developing over the past month, and because of my recent CSM column.
Hizbullah, because in mid-week my editors at Boston Review sent back their markup on the big Hizbullah piece I sent to them at the end of January. They’d cut about one-third of the piece’s originally 13,000-word length. Which is okay, I guess. But they asked me to put in a couple of other things–and I found a couple of other things I really needed to put in. So now it’s sitting about 10,400 words.
But anyway, that was a bunch of work to keep me busy. Such an interesting story! It’s not coming out till their April-May issue. What a bother! Why can’t they give instant gratification, like blogging??
But he is talking about one side only, the Palestinian one, the weakest one. Hamas is changing, he argues, so he is hopeful. What about Israel? Does Hamas occupy the West Bank? Does Hamas built settlements in the Westbank? Who is occupying who? Nothing about Israel, nothing about Israeli policy, nothing about settlements, or occupation, or the stealing of land, or the stealing of water, nothing about assassinations, closures, repression, destruction.
Israel is just responding to Palestinian terror, he seems to suggest, as if he has internalised the Israeli propaganda.
Hamas is a big enough topic to talk about, all by itself.
The stuff you are complaining about is mostly the result of the Intifada and Israeli response to the Intifada. The hard truth is that the Palestinians started the current war when peace was available, and have been reaping the pain that results.
Israel supplies water and electricity to the Palestinians. Do you think the Palestinians run their own water system and power plants?
Warren–
That’s the most amazingly revealing bit of basic ignorance (oh sorry, “lack of awareness”) that you have ever displayed on this blog!
Have you never heard the sad tale of the (Palestinian-owned and run) Jerusalem Electric Complany, and how it was progressively restricted from selling its power by the Israelis, and stifled?
Have you any idea who was running all the water system in the West Bank until Mekorot, the Israeli water company, came along and dug deep-bore wells to underdraw the Palestinian wells, to take that water for the use of Israelis in Israel and in the settlements; and meanwhile put tight limits on the Palestinians’ ability to draw from the aquifer???
You seem to know nothing of the actual situation, but have merely bought wholesale into a sort of “colonialist” narrative by which the “whitefolks” are the ones who brought all technology and “civilization” into the previously benighted lives of the indigenes.
You know what? That wasn’t true in Africa. It wasn’t true of the colonial-indigenous encounter here in the US. And it certainly isn’t true in the OPTs.
The difference is, in the OPT, there are plenty of people and documentation around that record (1) the scope and efficacy of the pre-colonial systems in these regards and (2) the exact course of the DE-development measures imposed on the indigenes by the colonizers.
Menno–
I think Eyad does mention the change in Israeli hearts. True, he’s dealing nearly exclusively with attitudes, which are not the whole story, rather than behaviors. But attitudes are an important part of the story. Eyad, as a committed nonviolence activist, probably thinks that getting the Israelis’ attitudes to change (including through attitude and behavior changes by the Pals) is the key to getting Israeli behaviors to change.
Also, by profession he’s a psychiatrist, so what would expect him to look at?
I’m very glad he does what he does. Others can supplement that by bringing in the facts and figures about behaviors and their effects.
“Hamas was quick to charge people with collaboration with Israel and to kill them. That was a sign of insecurity.”
Assasinating your own people is a sign of insecurity? Give me a break. I would personally name reasons like Primitive, Irrational, Lawless, Coward, Bully, Animal, Ignorant, and 90 more before I get to insecure.
What’s next? Al-Qaeda is insecure, but when it matures we should welcome them as a political entity?
Reading between the lines of the most recalcitrant intransigents and giving them credit for things they haven’t said and certainly haven’t done! Only on this board.
E. Bilpe
I don’t really care to get into arguments with the likes of E. Bilpe, but I must remind him that to King George II, our own George Washington was an insurgent and a traitor.
Helena – thank you so much for this post. I appreciated your analysis in the CSM a great deal (and would have missed it without your blog) and I was deeply moved by Eyad Sarraj’s story of the soldier from Hebron seeking counsel. It does sound like the beginning of a New York comedian’s standup routine: “a young Israeli soldier is on duty at a checkpoint when this Palestinian psychiatrist walks up. The soldier says – Doctor, I have a problem…” etc. OK, so I’m being silly here, but it’s the improbabibility of the scene that moved me.
Thanks again. I’m linking on Dove’s Eye View.
And how uncanny about your Hizbullah remarks – I was just ranting on the HEad Heeb’s board about this psy ops campaign that I perceived. I elaborated to him in a private email because I felt I was just working with hunches. And here you’ve laid out the whole scenario. It’s my deep fear that the US or Israel will invade Lebanon (and/or Syria) again, as bad as 82 or worse. Anyway – thanks for this discussion – I had not seen it at all when I was ranting away early yesterday morning.
Helena:
I admit I’ve never heard of the “Jerusalem Electric Company”. Did you mean the “Palestine Electric Corporation”? I had heard of that, though not much. I recently read that with regards to the “Disengagement” regarding Gaza, Israel would continue to supply water and electricity to Gaza.
I know there was water in the pre-1948 British Mandate. There must have been water going back millenia. I knew that the Israelis built large water projects for irrigation. It makes sense that the later, larger, deeper water projects would supplant the earlier, shallower wells. Irrigation is generally considered a good thing, although it does have its problems.
I would be surprised to learn that much electrification was built under Ottoman rule — perhaps in Jerusalem? I suppose some could have been built under Jordanian or Egyptian governance. I know the British had plans for hydroelectric dams and irrigation, but I don’t know what they built. If the PA built much in the way of irrigation or power generation, I am unaware of it.
Are you suggesting that the Arab population electrified the area before 1922? Or did so after 1922 without participation of one of the above governments? Do you have references for whatever it is that you are claiming? I am eager to learn more.
Anyway, my main point was about Menno’s comment on Eyad Sarraj, not about electrification or irrigation. Menno complained that Sarraj focused on Hamas. I was trying to express that the belligerence of the Second Intifada originated with the Palestinian side, and it makes sense to focus on the most belligerent part, Hamas. If Hamas changes, peace becomes possible.
Of course, there is the theory that Hamas was always doing the bidding of Yassir Arafat, and the new, more peaceful Hamas is only a reflection of the change of PA leadership. I don’t think this theory has been proved or disproved.
By the way, was there any real deal signed at Sharm el-Sheik? Or was it just a photo-op?
WW, I honestly find it hard to believe that someone would be so happy to let his ignorance all hang out, without at least doing a little defensive Googling along the way??
Well, I’ll leave you to do your own research, so perhaps you can then join the rest of us in the reality-based community, instead of sticking around in the extremely uninformed fantasyland from whch you’ve been voicing all your “opinions” up until now.
Israel’s refusal to allow the Palestinian-owned Jerusalem Electric Company, sometimes also known as the J’lem District Electric Company, buy additional generators (or even rehab efficiently the generators it already had) has been a longrunning issue in Israel’s administration of its occupation of East Jerusalem. This forced the JEC to have to buy power from Israel– yet another instance of colonial-imposed economic dependency.
I actually did Google the JEC, and found this charming little encapsulation of the history of Ramallah. Which includes the item: “1936– Electricity comes to Ramallah from the Jerusalem Electric Company. Most homes soon had electric lights.” Israel, of course, didn’t even exist at that point.
(I also discovered that the last time Ramallah had a significant earthquake, before the one they had while I was there last February, was in 1927.)
Your ignorance is also showing badly here, WW: there is the theory that Hamas was always doing the bidding of Yassir Arafat… I don’t think this theory has been proved or disproved.
If the kind of totally ignorant, and hate- and fear-fueled, misinformation that you so freely spew about weren’t, in general, so very damaging to human wellbeing (because widespread) I might find the mock earnestness with which you put forward what you claim are significant “theories” about Middle eastern politics to be extremely amusing. But you fail to tickle my funny-bone. Why don’t you go and learn something about the world before you start producing any more of your opinions or “theories”?
Helena:
1. I did google for the JEC, and apparently mistyped it. It comes up now.
2. In 1936 the British ran Jerusalem. The Palestine Electric Corporation was founded in Tel Aviv in 1923, according my googling. This is now the “Israel Electric Company”.
3. In times of war, bombing the enemy’s electric power stations is nearly a normal activity. That Israel let the Palestinians, who repeatedly swore that their goal was the utter destruction of Israel, keep any power stations is surprising.
4. My original mention of power and water was not to impugn the ability of Arabs to run the facilities. Look at Egypt. I doubted that the Palestinians were running much now. Your “Sad tale” actually reinforces those doubts. Reread what I wrote. The JEC is not the major issue in the Arab-Israeli dispute and I won’t bother with it further.
5. The self-parody of Yassir Arafat claiming to represent the Palestinians while he also claimed to be unable to control the suicide bombers has been evident for some time. After all, Arafats own group, Fatah committed a large share of the attacks. Are we to believe that Arafat was against the Intifada? Did he not praise the suicide bombers as martyrs?
That Hamas and IJ are now toeing the PA line on peace only adds to my skepticism. These questions are not ignorant. They are filled with neither hate nor fear. You sound frightened, I do not.
6. I expressed a willingness to learn about the JEC. Perhaps you should be willing to learn more about the world as well?
7. As a start, try to figure out how Fatah was able to fight against Israel but be “Unable” to fight against Hamas. Was Hamas too big?