The King is in his altogether

“So Hamas is no longer quite the monster it was. Its not fundamentalist as is presented in the West. Its secular support is a reaction to its opposition to corruption, its honest and efficient provision of social services and its steadfast opposition to occupation.”
___________

By Terry Lacey

(October 03, Jakarta, Sri Lanka Guardian) Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler writing from Inter Press Service Jerusalem in The Jakarta Post (01.10.09) confirmed that “It is unlikely that Obama will be free to act decisively on Israel-Palestine until he has dealt successfully with the Iran nuclear issue”.

This means that the nakedness of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is covered by the fig leaf provided by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Danny Kaye used to sing the song about a children´s story with a grown-up message, that although grown-ups pretend when they have to, children can see when “The King is in his altogether” – when the King is naked because he is wearing no clothes. But his courtiers dare not face the truth.

Mary Robinson writing from project Syndicate New York on the report of Judge Richard Goldstone on alleged human rights violations in the recent Gaza war, now to be presented to UN Human Rights Council, also said in The Jakarta Post that both the Israelis and the Palestinians share a secret fear – for some a belief - that each has no intention of accepting the others right to a country of their own.

Yet both sides seem to prop each other up in a tight embrace, like quarrelsome but inseparable lovers, to maintain an impossible status quo, which is also impossible to change.

They claim not to be married, so they cannot divorce. But they are still married and have one household economy, and are potentially inseparable. It looks like they live in separate houses with all their fences and walls.

But they contemplate to stay in one house eventually, (through confederation, a common market, or even a unitary state) by declining every other practical alternative until there remain no other option.

See lets see what they do, and not always listen to what they say.

Meanwhile, despite the appalling continuation of the Gaza blockade backed by Israel, Egypt and the West, Hamas has reportedly made progress, despite the clampdown it faces in the West Bank, in coming up with a possible model for a deal. Firstly they agree to a long truce. Secondly they agree to potentially join a unity government.

Thirdly they say they would be bound by a final political decision of all Palestinians, following a negotiation they did not necessarily lead, so that if the people voted for a deal, then Hamas would accept it and work within it.

This is what we hear from Gaza and Damascus. If its true, why is there still a blockade instead of an internal Palestinian agreement, and why do Israel and the West still punish the people of Gaza for their political loyalties to their elected government ? These positions mean that the right to armed struggle would be superceded by acceptance of a peace agreement. Why should Hamas give up the one before securing the other ? Did we ask the IRA to do the same thing ?

This would avoid the Irish civil war scenario whereby the supporters of deValera reneged on the attainable deal negotiated by Michael Collins the leader of their military wing, leading to a dreadful civil war and the subsequent permanent political division between those who accepted the Treaty (Fine Gael) and those who opposed it (Fianna Fail).

So Hamas is no longer quite the monster it was. Its not fundamentalist as is presented in the West. Its secular support is a reaction to its opposition to corruption, its honest and efficient provision of social services and its steadfast opposition to occupation. It remains to be seen if the clampdown on Hamas in the West Bank led by an unelected Palestinian government has reduced political support for Hamas or not. Probably less than is hoped.

I once asked a PFLP activist and peace rejectionist many years ago why he wanted me to help him get a Jerusalem ID (and therefore the right to be an Israeli) for him and his young wife, apart from an Israeli mortgage and weekends on the beach at Tel Aviv or in Tiberias. “Because I would rather be in their opposition than our jail” came the answer. So did that mean he wanted to be a Palestinian, or an Israeli, or both and have freedom ?

Terry Lacey is a development economist who writes from Jakarta on modernization in the Muslim world, investment and trade relations with the EU and Islamic banking.

-Sri Lanka Guardian