On 'Hamastan'...

Days after the Hamas takeover, 'pro-Western', pro-Abbas propagandists have conjured up a new and scary title with which to refer, pejoratively, to Gaza - 'Hamastan'. Officials and journalists have already started to use the phrase openly (see here, here, and here), some even going so far as to claim that "a new Islamist state is emerging", or that "Gazans now find themselves living under an illegal, self-proclaimed Islamic Republic" (at which point I feel it should be noted that Hamas received a clear parliamentary majority, especially in Gaza), later referred to in the same (hilarious) article as "the terrorist state of Hamastan" (another, here). Besides being outright lies, these allegations completely ignore the fact that the deposed legitimate Palestinian Prime Minister, Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh, has repeatedly called for the resumption of the representative national unity government, as well as clearly indicating that Hamas intends to work and negotiate with Abbas. This, however, is looking less likely each day, as Abbas moves further away from dialogue, and closer towards co-operating with foreigners willing to help him consolidate power ("Bush backs Abbas Cabinet; U.S. Poised to Resume Aid").

As the BBC notes, 'key powers' (being the U.S., European leaders, and Israel) are more than willing to back the Palestinian government - a sure sign that that the Palestinian leadership is now wholly unrepresentative, and, one might say, 'under control'. In fact, it would appear that these 'key powers' are the only supporters of Abbas's new governmnet. Journalist Peter Beaumont of The Observer summarizes;

It was a good election, as former US President Jimmy Carter observed at the time, a free, fair and accurate expression of the desires of a Palestinian people sick of the uselessness, corruption and gangsterism of Fatah. The problem was that it didn't quite reflect the wishes of Washington and the international community...

Beaumont provides us with the newly appointed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's 'democratic credentials' (which, predictably, are few);

...in last year's elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council - the election Hamas won - Fayyad's list secured just 2.4 per cent of votes. Not exactly a popular guy to lead a society in collapse... That is not his only problem. Analysts of the Palestinian political scene don't rate Fayyad's lack of democratic credentials simply on his feeble showing in the elections.

They'll tell you he is largely unknown to most Palestinians; that he has no party machinery to support him; and that his running mate Hanan Ashrawi is unpopular with many Palestinians.

Taken together, Fayyad's vast unpopularity amongst Palestinians and his being the choice-representative of Western statesmen, his appointment as Prime Minister speaks volumes about the new Abbas dictatorship.

Beaumont has also written a piece entitled, ‘How Hamas Turned on Palestine’s Traitors’ that serves as a nice follow up for an article cited in my previous post detailing a Fatah member’s praise for Hamas’s actions in Gaza. Beaumont explains that;

…the leaders of Hamas had in mind a different solution to Gaza's corrosive security crisis: a definitive attack on… the security institutions still controlled by Fatah and Abbas, which had been bolstered by US funds.

Discreetly, Hamas had forged links with members and former members of Fatah with whom it was happy to deal. It had drawn up a list of buildings belonging to the security forces of Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, to be overrun, and lists of Fatah loyalists it blamed for the murder of Hamas members. Finally, it had briefed journalists on the Hamas-controlled television channel al-Aqsa TV on the message to broadcast to Gaza's 1.4 million people to reassure them, as the fighting turned from clashes to an all-out assault on Fatah-held positions.

It was a message that would dramatically underline the nature of last week's assault. It was not an attack on Fatah, the broadcasts would insist, or Gaza's people. Instead, those under attack, the supporters of Gaza's head of the Preventive Security Force, Mohammed Dahlan, were 'collaborators with Israel and the US and traitors'…

Beaumont cites a Gaza resident who reports that, “some officers in the Presidential Guard had sent their men home as the fighting began”. Another resident speaks of the motivation of the Hamas fighters and Dahlan’s organization of Fatah’s security services in Gaza (some more testimony can be found here);

…'Some [Hamas fighters] fought for four days without going home. They believe in what they're doing. The others, Fatah security forces, fought for their thousand shekels (£120) or a packet of cigarettes. Dahlan had used poverty to recruit the people. The majority didn't even turn up to defend their stations, many stayed at home. Most were in plain clothes. Dozens called the Qassam and said, "We want to leave, give us security and a safe passage." Most of the decent security people don't want to fight for Dahlan, or Israel or America. They don't feel they should be killed for the American or Israeli agenda.'

Mohammad Dahlan, by the way, is coming under intense criticism from fellow Fatah members in Gaza for abusing his power (to put it mildly...) over the Palestinian Authority security services. They are calling for his trial.

Abu Obaida, the spokesperson for Hamas’s Qassam Brigades, is also quoted in Beaumont’s article as stating that;

'Hamas has issued a full pardon to all the security leaders and personnel who participated in the fight against Hamas. Our fight is not against Fatah, the one with the long history in the struggle, but against just one group of Fatah agents who were following the Zionist agenda. The decent people of Fatah were co-ordinating with us and are happy we have got rid of the corrupt people of Fatah…

In line with this, it appears as though Fatah fighters and officials are being urged to return to Gaza from Egypt, where they fled to during the battle.

On a final note, I’d like to direct readers to this frighteningly hilarious piece from the editors of U.S.A. Today, entitled ‘Dealing With Hamastan’ – according to which U.S. meddling in Palestine amounts to “good intentions in a bad neighborhood”, and Hamas is characterized as “Shiite and linked to Iran” (they really dropped the ball on that one…). “The real need”, according to U.S.A. Today, “is to force Hamas political leaders to understand that they need to gain control of their militias and find a way to negotiate with both Fatah and Israel. That suggests a role for a credible negotiator — perhaps Saudi Arabia or Egypt”. The fact that Hamas has been open to negotiations, and that the Saudi and Egyptian governments can hardly be considered ‘credible’ (or impartial) by virtue of their ties with the U.S. and Fatah, make this article either an incredibly well-thought out and witty piece of sarcasm, or irrefutable proof that the editors of U.S.A. Today have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. Enjoy.