A highlight from Palestinian politics under occupation

Rear Vision
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Militant group hamas said the twenty second of may was the day. Palestinians should have been voting for the palestinian legislative council. President of busk claimed he postponed the election because israel would not allow palestinians in east jerusalem to take part but he's opponents claim. The real reason was that he feed his party. Fetter would lose the election while the current unrest in east. Jerusalem and gaza is not directly connected with the postponement of the election. It is part of the water political problems faced by palestinians across the occupied territories. Hello i'm vote points and in this revision. The story of palestinian politics hostility between fatter and amass the separation of the gaza strip from the west bank and the israeli occupation fatah animas of the two main political parties in palestinian politics fodder dominates politics in the west bank while hamas controls the gaza strip yet for fifteen years. They have refused to deal with each other. So what led this division and just had different politically and ideologically are they. Ali abu nima is the executive director of the electric intifada an independent publication on palestine further dates back to the nineteen sixties and very soon after the plo emerged in the early to mid nineteen sixties. It was quickly backed by the arab regimes and it became dependent on support from those regimes and also from palestinians working in some of these countries particularly in the gulf countries and that support is often misunderstood. It wasn't so much that these regimes were supporting fatter. Hand the plo. In order to support the palestinian cause it was really more about taming them and making sure that these didn't become independent revolutionary forces. That could threaten these regimes. So you could say the. Plo is very quickly domesticated by the arab regimes. How emerged in the late. Nineteen eighties in gaza in the context of what has come to be called the first intifada the palestinian uprising that began in nineteen eighty seven at that time. The west bank and gaza strip had been under israeli military occupation for twenty years so really a whole generation had grown up under occupation and that was the context in which hamas emerged as a resistance movement fatah was initially formed in the nineteen fifties by men guess or arafat who went on to become the first president to the palestinian authority and of course he became the central figure. Jonathan shanzer is from the think. Tank the foundation for the defense of democracy in washington. Dc and he interprets the history of fatah and hamas quite differently thought was a violent faction to begin with arafat conducted a guerrilla campaign if found help from donors in the gulf in from lebanon from syria. The attacked israel from many of its borders. And really i think started this campaign of girl of warfare that israel is still combating today. Thoughts over time became a bit more. Pragmatic arafat himself was faced with the decision. During the first intifada as he watched hamas gain power he had to make a decision as to whether he would allow us to eclipse him so arafat decided in the early nineteen nineties that he would recognize israel and begin to engage in what we now know as the oslo process this peace process in so doing he gained international recognition and was immediately catapulted to this position of recognize. Leadership in this in fact is really the root of the conflict that we see today among the palestinians this internecine palestinian conflict is actually a direct result of arafat's deft political maneuvering back in the early nineteen nineties but according to dow kutab palestinian journalist and director general of the community media network there are also important ideological and political differences between fatter and hamas for the is a national secular movement even though it has many faithful deeply war religious in it but it's a wide liberation movement that tries to stay outdoors ideological straitjackets. Moving that is trying to liberate alison for palestinians. Hamas is an ideological movement close to the brotherhood and that is their basic resume. Debts amassed still believes in using violence resistance. Wildfire has largely been supporting nonviolent resistance again. Though hamas said that they're willing to move closer towards popular nonviolent resistance but in fact they still own rockets and every now and then shoot them against israelis and does not during the nineteen nineties fighter and the pilo led the negotiations that resulted in the oslo accord. Hamas oppose the negotiations and refused to give up. Its armed struggle. This is when we really began to hear more about hamas because hamas was engaging in gruesome acts of violence carrying out suicide bombings in israel blowing up block buses blowing up restaurants malls. The intention of this was of course to kill as many jews or israelis as possible but also it was a defiance of the palestinian authority of the fatah faction how it was running the oslo process. And so this was hamas no vote. This was their way of saying we reject arafat's authority. We reject the oslo process. And we will do everything that we can to disrupt it. I think the fuss thing to say. Hamas was strongly opposed to the oslo peace process but a wide spectrum of palestinians were opposed to the oslo peace process. So when i think back to the nineteen nineties the rhetoric that was used by the united states and other powers towards anyone who opposed the oslo process was that they were labelled enemies of peace and that language was designed to de-legitimize any opposition to the oslo process whether it came from hamas a whether it came from the renowned international scholar edwards and of course the wing palestinian factions that also post the oslo process. So the reason. I'm emphasizing that is because opposition to the oslo process was widespread among palestinians. And it was based on the fear. Which i think history bore out that this would be a process that would simply legitimize israeli occupation and provide israel opportunity to entrench its control of palestinian lives while relieving is relevant to national pressure. And i think if you just measure that by for example how many settlements israel has built in occupied territory since the oslo accords. Side you find that. The oslo courts did nothing to restrain israel and in fact the loss of palestinian land. Duty israeli colonization and settlement even accelerated under

Coming up next