Oslo saw the establishment of the PA, which was to serve as an interim government and the embryo of a Palestinian state in the making. With meager ability to raise its own funds, the PA was largely financed through donor aid, which flooded the West Bank and Gaza under the auspices of institution building and the promotion of democracy. Yet unlike the PLO, which gained popular legitimacy as the representative of the Palestinian people in all their geographic, social, and political fragments, the PA is only responsible for Palestinian populations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
In other words, the creation of the PA led to the deliberate limiting of Palestine and the Palestinians to the West Bank and Gaza, which has led to the disenfranchisement of Palestinians elsewhere.
The victory of Hamas in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections was a reaction to the untenable situation created by the Oslo regime. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza expressed their dissatisfaction with the Fatah-controlled PA through the ballot box.
This expression was immediately rejected by the international community, who imposed sanctions on the PA that extended to the thorough suspension of aid to Palestinians. The subsequent battle between Fatah and Hamas ensued, resulting in Fatah being expelled from Gaza and a military siege imposed on the coastal strip that continues to this day. The space for democratic and political practice in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been shrinking. To maintain this monopoly on political power, the PA has become increasingly authoritarian by frequently repressing political opposition, including journalists and student activists.
In Human Rights Watch, putting forth analysis similar to that of local human rights organizations, published a report explaining how the Palestinian authorities. As the Fatah-Hamas feud deepened despite attempts at reconciliation, PA security services have targeted supporters of Hamas and vice versa.
It is in within this context of limited democratic and political space that we must consider elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Elections could be held and conducted in a technically free and fair manner, passing the standards of international observers. Yet the lack of political competition and plurality means that the elections would not reflect true democratic practice.
As Tariq Dana has commented ,. For the electoral process to be meaningful and productive, it must take place in a healthy environment where basic democratic criteria are integrated into the structure of national institutions, the political party system, civil society, the education system, and the general cultural framework.
In other words, democracy must be exercised in a more holistic manner for elections to constitute as real democratic practice; otherwise, they simply reinforce the ruling regime. For many Palestinians the reaction to the elections showed what happens when they decide on a leadership that challenges the political agenda of the Israeli regime and the international donor community. Further, the aftermath led to a seemingly impenetrable divide between Hamas and Fatah. Elections without reconciliation will only supply each side with opportunities to blame the other for failings.
It is thus unsurprising that Palestinians have little confidence in an electoral process. This requires us to think about what kind of democracy is possible under occupation.
The Israeli regime has demonstrated that it will crush Palestinian expressions of democracy that challenge the occupation and the status quo, which relies on a subordinate Palestinian leadership. In the Battle of Gaza in , Hamas forcibly took over the Gaza Strip, which it has ruled as the de facto authority in the decade since. According to the Hamas Charter, the document that affirms this goal, Hamas seeks to "raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine," and advocates Jihad, violent resistance, as the only means of fighting against Israel.
Hamas differs from its secular Fatah counterpart both in its religious nature and its unwillingness to negotiate or compromise with Israel, asserting that "there is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Hamas is composed of three main wings - political, military, and social - that work in their respective spheres to advance the organization's goals. Short History of Hamas in Gaza.
Extrajudicial Executions and Torture in Gaza. The Status of Women in Gaza. The bombings were widely blamed for turning Israelis off the peace process and bringing Benjamin Netanyahu - a staunch opponent of the Oslo accords - to power in In the post-Oslo world, most particularly following the failure of US President Bill Clinton's Camp David summit in and the second intifada which followed shortly thereafter, Hamas gained power and influence as Israel clamped down on the Palestinian Authority, which it accused of sponsoring deadly attacks.
Hamas organised clinics and schools, which served Palestinians who felt let down by the corrupt and inefficient Palestinian Authority, dominated by the Fatah faction. Many Palestinians cheered the wave of Hamas suicide attacks in the first years of the second intifada. They saw "martyrdom" operations as avenging their own losses and Israel's settlement-building in the West Bank, territory wanted by Palestinians for a future state of their own.
When Hamas scored a landslide victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections in , the stage was set for a bitter power-struggle with Fatah. Hamas resisted all efforts to get it to sign up to previous Palestinian agreements with Israel, as well as to recognise Israel's legitimacy and to renounce violence. Hamas's charter defines historic Palestine - including present-day Israel - as Islamic land and it rules out any permanent peace with the Jewish state.
The document also repeatedly makes attacks on Jews as a people, drawing charges that the movement is anti-Semitic. In , Hamas produced a new policy document that softened some of its stated positions and used more measured language. There was no recognition of Israel, but it did formally accept the creation of an interim Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - what are known as pre lines. The document also stresses that Hamas's struggle is not with Jews but with "occupying Zionist aggressors".
Israel said the group was "attempting to fool the world". As a result, the new Hamas-led government was subjected to tough economic and diplomatic sanctions by Israel and its allies in the West.
After Hamas ousted forces loyal to Fatah from Gaza in , Israel tightened its blockade on the territory, and Palestinian rocket-fire and Israeli air strikes continued.
Egypt also closed its border crossing with Gaza and has only opened it intermittently since.
0コメント