Hamas: Their "fascism" and ours

[Random Precision]

From Lenin's Tomb (http://leninology.blogspot.com/)

Zizek describing Hezbollah and Hamas as "fascist" is no surprise - the flip side to his contrarianism is that, when in doubt, he just repeats liberal banalities because that's what he essentially believes. However, I encounter this sort of nonsense from people who ought to know better, and I think we all do. And after seeing this resentful yeah, well..." (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/alan_johnson/2008/05/hamas_and_antisemitism.html") sort of reply from Alan Johnson to the Hamas minister Bassem Naeem ("http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bassem_naeem/2008/05/hamas_condemns_the_holocaust.html), one starts to realise how the liberal theodicy of the Middle East conflict relies upon this canard. After all, Johnson is not the sort of nasty person to deny the Palestinians their rights (those being constrained to what is deemed compatible with the continuation of Israel's existence as a Zionist state). And since he is the sort of person who thinks Israel would as soon have peace as perpetual war, there must be some reason why it has so far failed to materialise. Extremists 'on both sides' obviously contribute to the impasse, but the real story is that Hamas plots genocide against the Jews. Can't trust 'em - not 'partners for peace'.

The ideology of Hamas is not obscure. An offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the main goal of the organisation is to eventually replace Israel with an Islamic Republic on the whole of historic Palestine. Its most vociferously expressed conviction in its early years was the belief that Israel could not be won over through negotiations and concessions, and that only a military jihad could succeed. This in fact constituted a departure for the historically quietist Muslim Brothers, but in truth it was the first intifada and the way in which it was crushed that galvanised the organisation. Two key figures inspire Hamas' ideological orientation. The first is Sayyid Qutb, whose doctrinal contribution became a staple of Brotherhood ideology in the course of struggle with the Nasserist state. Qutb articulated a right-wing variant of Third Worldist discourse, rejecting both socialism and American-style capitalism. Like ideological confederates such as Mawdudi, he sought to renew Muslim societies from the weakness that had allowed them to be overwhelmed by colonial powers by resuscitating their moral power. Reacting against the chimera of a distinctly Western weltanschauung, comprising nationalism, secularism and liberal democracy (cf Mawdudi), Qutb regarded the unconditional sovereignty of God as the basis for such renewal. If you're an Anglo-American writer in need of a justification for perpetual war, the technical term for this doctrine is "Islamofascism".

Still, as Zizek himself has pointed out (on Haider v Blair), fascism is not just a bundle of elements (anti-socialism, anti-modern reflux, patriarchy, corporatism, etc), it is a particular articulation of those elements. In my view, it is far better to see Qutb's doctrine as a conservative form of anti-colonial nationalism, in which the plane of nationhood is transferred to the Umma. Realistically, Qutb's ideal state would probably not have differed that much from Nasser's, except for added religious trappings. Were it not for the failure of the Free Officers to accomodate the Muslim Brothers in the corporatist Egyptian state, indeed, Qutb would have been happy to support that state - he had himself been a supporter of the Free Officer rebellion. Mind you, the British had no problem deeming even Nasser a "fascist" when he nationalized the Suez Canal, because only a fascist would do something to annoy a declining empire. The second key figure for Hamas, is 'Izz al-Din al-Qassam, an important figure in the Palestinian resistance to the British occupation who was killed in the build-up to the 1936-9 uprising. In fact, Qassam had form as an anti-colonial fighter, which career he began when Italy invaded Libya in 1911, and continued with the Syrian revolt against the French Mandate. His contribution to the Palestinian struggle was to form 'Black Hand', an underground resistance movement which - of course - the British Empire considered a 'terrorist' outfit. The anti-colonial lineage is crucial, and this is recognised in Hamas ideology.

The Muslim Brothers emerged as a serious force in Palestine particularly after the 1967 war and during the Israeli occupation. In this time, the rising profile of religion in politics and daily life saw the number of mosques soar, particularly in Gaza, where the number rose over the first twenty years of occupation from 200 to 600. This was the main vector through which the Brothers established a presence, aside from using zakat to supply alms to the needy and so forth. When the first riots of the incipient intifada erupted in December 1987, several of the Brothers based at the Islamic Centre in Gaza met to discuss a response. They started to publish propaganda leaflets calling for action against the Israeli occupation, and formed the original nucleus for what would become known as Hamas (short for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement") in 1988. For nice liberals, this is the moment of disaster, but I actually think that hitherto quietest bourgeois Islamic nationalists throwing themselves into the resistance is a good development, not least since the PLO was increasingly bankrupt politically and militarily since its expulsion from Lebanon in 1982. In fact, it should be said that older members of the Brotherhood were quite trepidatious about getting involved in the uprising, since they still maintained that Palestinians needed to be educated in Islam before they could be ready for a full-scale rebellion - it was the younger generation who drove the evolution of Hamas into a serious organisation of resistance.

Hamas' goals, as explained in its Charter, are congruent with those of the Brotherhood, but place far more emphasis on the specific Palestinian problem, and less on reforming society along Islamic lines. The organisation certainly considers the whole of historic Palestine an Islamic waqf, or trust, but this is really a religious form of Palestinian nationalism. In fact, what was distinctive about Hamas in the 1990s was that while the PLO were retreating from the mainstays of Palestinian nationalism and popular armed struggle, Hamas conspicuously held to them. Of course, simple tactical flexibility has ensured that it has always differentiated its long-term goals from short-term aims such as establishing a state on Gaza and the West Bank. So it wasn't that weird for it to declare a willingness to arrive at a ten year truce with Israel based on a two-state settlement. Although Hamas is usually equated with suicide attacks, it has always been pragmatic about the use of force, deploying it in much the same way as secular Palestinian groups such as Fatah and the PFLP. It cooperated with the PLO over the Oslo negotiations process, for example, despite its misgivings. And though Hamas has always rejected the PLO's inherent right to lead the Palestinians, it has also opposed intra-Palestinian bloodshed and sectarianism and has, even before its velocitous rise since 2000, sought to forge a coalition with the organisation on an agreed platform.

The key point that has animated liberal critique of Hamas, aside from violence, is antisemitism. Without question, the early Hamas doctrine held that the defense of Palestine was part of a resistance not only against imperialism or Zionism but against essentialised blocs of Judaism and Christianity, who they depicted as engaged in an existential battle with Islam. They drew on claims from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to interpret their struggle as one against Jewish world domination. In a reductionist way, you could see this as the result of 'false consciousness', or a simple lack of class analysis. True enough, if your oppressors tell you that they represent the world's Jews, that they are the Jewish state, and you lack the conceptual apparatus with which to disentangle such nationalist myths - because you are subject to your own variant of such mythology - then the antisemitic conspiracy theories might be alluring. And this reductionist interpretation is certainly better than the even more reductionist take, which is that Islam is inherently antisemitic because of its dangerous proximity to Judaism which produces a narcissistic recoil (actually, in that highly culturalist assessment, Zizek might well have drawn consciously from Huntington or even Michael Ignatieff). I think there is also an element of subverting the morality through which Israel asserts its dominance, namely its claim to represent the victims of the Nazi holocaust. If Israel were the culmination of a conspiracy, there would be no need to defer to the tragic recent history of a People of the Book. As Edward Said never tired of arguing, this style of denunciation is a hateful inversion of logic. The proper way to undermine the legitimacy of Israeli oppression is to point out the structural similarity between Israel's racism and European antisemitism, between its modes of domination and those of European states. I need hardly add that the antisemitism in the Covenant is, however inexcusable, in no way equivalent to European antisemitism, which was not even remotely a reaction to oppression. Such analysis will hopefully become passe, at any rate, if Bassem Naeem's simple and straightforward repudiation of antisemitism is representative of Hamas' current direction. And what then will be left for the defenders of Israel, as its ministers draw on the metaphors of the Shoah to describe its atrocities against Palestinians? As increasing numbers of Jewish people reject Israel's claim to represent their interests? As Hamas defends Palestinian democracy and Israel and its allies attack it and undermine it?

Would it be better if the Left were stronger than the Islamists in Palestine? Unquestionably, if it was a Left worth its salt. If, that is, it was a Left unlike any that people like Alan Johnson or his conferes would accept. By no means do I think Hamas has the answers. As things stand, much - not all - of the Palestinian Left is taking a sectarian approach to Hamas while broadly aligning with a decrepit and corrupt nationalism that will surely bring them down with it. One would hope in the minimum for a renewed spirit of Palestinian unity, but that of course depends upon the nationalist wing evacuating itself from the imperialist camp. In the meantime, I fear that Hamas are currently the only serious resistance movement in Palestine, for all their shortcomings. The libidinised appropriation of the language of anti-fascism by liberal apologists for Israel both disgraces that tradition and helps isolate and vilify the major obstacle to Israel's successful wiping of Palestine from the map.

[Guerrilla22]

Good article, its true the western media has dubbed Hamas and other similar groups and individuals as "Islamofascist". Its doubtful they even know what exactly fascism entails. Actually, liberals and even some leftist are guilty of labelling anything they disagree with or view in a negative context as being "fascist" as well.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think it is fascist but I do think it is reactionary. But then again, I don't hold the ridicolous line of "anti-imperialism" that always ends with communists mowed down by guns with their back on the wall.

[turquino]

I think islamic FASCISM is a good description of HAMAS and their ideological forefathers in the muslim brotherhood. Their class structure is perfectly fascist: a mass organization with its base is the lower-middle class and the declassed. These are MEN who are disgusted by cosmopolitanism, and a key part of their programme is to reclaim what they feel has been denied to them: patriarchal control over the family. They HATE the big western bourgeois and their local compradors, but instead of seeking to liberate their nations and humanity, they want to take power and turn themselves into a parasitic ruling WARRIOR CASTE. And they hate socialism as much as they hate american imperialism and zionist fascism. In this regard there’s no doubt they could find a lot of common ground with the american far-right. Don’t be fooled by their ‘charity’ and tirades against globalization, their type do not possess a proletarian worldview.

I might pick up Zizek’s book, although i have found some of his previous work to be incomprehensible.

[YKTMX]

This is a good article from Seymour.

Hamas are a liberatory force with a mass base amongst the oppressed and their allies. Indeed, given the sad degeneration of the PLO and the Palestinian Left, they remain the sole force capable of liberating Palestine.

The "fascist" label is slanderous, historically abortive and has no analytical value whatsoever.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

One thing is for certain, I'd sure hate to be a worker in a Hamas-"liberated" Palestine.

[YKTMX]

You aren't and you won't be so there's nothing to worry about is there?

[NoArch]

HAMAS is a Muslim organisation and obviously holds an Islamic value system or view of the world. Muslims may be very communitarian but they are definitely not egalitarian or "communist."

The HAMAS fight against Israel and American hegemony is a noble one. Israel is artificial and imperialist; the Israelis use their military to control and impose their will upon the Palestinians and use Jewish victimology to justify themselves, an insult to historically oppressed Jews and the real oppressed Palestinians.

Any revolutionary person should whole-heartedly support the resistance in Palestine. I don't care if the Palestinians are "left" or "right," just that they are throwing countless spanners in the heart of Western capitalism and imperialism!

[Peacekeeper]

You all lay off Hamas and Hezbollah, they are the only ones who give a shit about my people, and the only ones who stand up to the Zionist Israeli child-murdering bastards!

Besides, Hezbollah is very progressive, as far as middle-eastern Muslim groups go. They support Western-style civil rights for women, etc.
Hamas, I'm not so crazy about, but I support them because they are the only group in Palestine right now with the balls to stand up to the fascist Israelis. Well, so does the Islamic Jihad, but Hamas is the most well-known in Palestine.


One thing is for certain, I'd sure hate to be a worker in a Hamas-"liberated" Palestine.

You idiot.
The Israelis have been pushing out Palestinian companies and starving their businesses of raw materials, etc., for SIX DECADES!!
No matter WHAT group finally defeats the Israeli state and establishes a Palestinian state, it will be infinitely better for Palestinian workers than it is now.

[PRC-UTE]

You all lay off Hamas and Hezbollah, they are the only ones who give a shit about my people, and the only ones who stand up to the Zionist Israeli child-murdering bastards!

Besides, Hezbollah is very progressive, as far as middle-eastern Muslim groups go. They support Western-style civil rights for women, etc.
Hamas, I'm not so crazy about, but I support them because they are the only group in Palestine right now with the balls to stand up to the fascist Israelis. Well, so does the Islamic Jihad, but Hamas is the most well-known in Palestine.



You idiot.
The Israelis have been pushing out Palestinian companies and starving their businesses of raw materials, etc., for SIX DECADES!!
No matter WHAT group finally defeats the Israeli state and establishes a Palestinian state, it will be infinitely better for Palestinian workers than it is now.

Why would you support them over say the PFLP?

[Peacekeeper]

Why would you support them over say the PFLP?
Because they are fucking pushovers and kowtowed to the Fatah idea of a two-state solution. Fuck that - that is Muslim land. All of it.
Also - they are secular. That's good in countries where theocracy would be anti-socialist, but Sharia supports a great deal of socialist ideals.

[eyedrop]

You all lay off Hamas and Hezbollah, they are the only ones who give a shit about my people, and the only ones who stand up to the Zionist Israeli child-murdering bastards! Emotional feelings doesn't help and I hope you weren't refering to all Israelis as child murdering bastards.


Besides, Hezbollah is very progressive, as far as middle-eastern Muslim groups go. They support Western-style civil rights for women, etc.
Hamas, I'm not so crazy about, but I support them because they are the only group in Palestine right now with the balls to stand up to the fascist Israelis. Well, so does the Islamic Jihad, but Hamas is the most well-known in Palestine.



You idiot.
The Israelis have been pushing out Palestinian companies and starving their businesses of raw materials, etc., for SIX DECADES!!
No matter WHAT group finally defeats the Israeli state and establishes a Palestinian state, it will be infinitely better for Palestinian workers than it is now. I agree with the rest of your post even though I must admit that I know too little about it to make a proper judgement. But yes Palestine must rule itself.

[Peacekeeper]

Emotional feelings doesn't help and I hope you weren't refering to all Israelis as child murdering bastards.
I agree with the rest of your post even though I must admit that I know too little about it to make a proper judgement. But yes Palestine must rule itself.

Well - the vast majority of Israelis have served in the IDF at some point. It's kind of the law (except Orthodox Jews, they are exempted). And the entire population can be conscripted in emergencies/times of war. So all Israelis are child-murderers or potential child-murderers. But I do not have much against, say, the anti-Zionist people who live in Israel.

[eyedrop]

Well - the vast majority of Israelis have served in the IDF at some point. It's kind of the law (except Orthodox Jews, they are exempted). And the entire population can be conscripted in emergencies/times of war. So all Israelis are child-murderers or potential child-murderers. But I do not have much against, say, the anti-Zionist people who live in Israel.

They have a 2 year mandatory draft as far as I remember. Why are ortodox jews exempt?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No matter WHAT group finally defeats the Israeli state and establishes a Palestinian state, it will be infinitely better for Palestinian workers than it is now.

There's no question that Palestine is oppressed by Israel and imperialism. The question is whether or not religious reactionaries can pose any kind of meaningful solution for the workers and farmers of that area.

History has shown they cannot (for example, see Iran).

It has long been communist principle not to support reactionary "anti-imperialists" who actively fight against imperialist oppression in order to better the situation of the local parasites.

Communists recognize "the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc." - Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions for the Second Congress of the Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And btw, the question is not one of who "murders babies," or what religion one subscribes to. Communists must get to the root of things, and examine class forces. We have no interests seperate from those of our (working) class, and our every action is aimed at bringing forth a communist world.

[Ultra-Violence]

HAMAS is a Muslim organisation and obviously holds an Islamic value system or view of the world. Muslims may be very communitarian but they are definitely not egalitarian or "communist."

The HAMAS fight against Israel and American hegemony is a noble one. Israel is artificial and imperialist; the Israelis use their military to control and impose their will upon the Palestinians and use Jewish victimology to justify themselves, an insult to historically oppressed Jews and the real oppressed Palestinians.

Any revolutionary person should whole-heartedly support the resistance in Palestine. I don't care if the Palestinians are "left" or "right," just that they are throwing countless spanners in the heart of Western capitalism and imperialism!
^^^^^^^^^^
QOETING FOR ITS AWSOME TRUTH!
SUPPORT THE STRUGGLE WORLD WIDE!

[Kami]

So all Israelis are child-murderers or potential child-murderers.
So are all people, full stop. That doesn't mean that they're going to murder children, would ever consider murdering children, or have child sandwhich in their lunch boxes. I'm pretty darn certain at least somone in israel would stand up to a draft, and that's all that's needed to proove that statement nationalist bullshit.

In regards to the original question, though, Muslim groups, or nationalist groups, should certainly not be supported; sometimes we forget that the enemy of our enemy might well be OUR enemy as well.

Israel has its working class as well; unless your posing that the land their is somehow "owned" more by the palestinians than the israelis, shouldn't any solution be on behalf of both of the peoples, rather than one or the other?

[Destroy capitalism]

The Palestinian people are the best judges of who they want to lead and defend them. As an Irish Republican I am a sworn ally of the Palestinian people. Period.
I myself do not console myself with any religion as I have no belief in religion however some politicised African Americans and many others find solace and unity in Islam, some Africans and white Rasta's believe in Ras Tafari, from my experience of Rastas in London I wouldn't like to be a woman in their culture. I am currently reading Nawal al Saadawi who has studied all three monotheistic religions. We recently had a discussion here about Buddhism. Nobody called the Dalai Lama a CIA stooge. We all live in countries where the majority accept some sort of supernatural power (I don't know how true this is of former Soviet bloc or China). It's racist to single out Islam to be opposed to. oppose all religions by all means if you want to, I myself would like to see secular schools compulsory worldwide. I've seen the survivors of the Irish troubles console themselves they'll meet the heroes of Ireland in heaven -it GETS THEM THROUGH THE UNBEARABLE .who are we in the safety of our computer stations to take that away from ANYBODY. The plain fact of the matter is that NOWHERE are the masses ready to abandon the supernatural.Islamophobia is being carefully cultivated, it is a feature of the current dominant ideology serving the capitalist imperialist desire to despoil Arabia and Africa of wealth. Fascism was a Christian phenomenon. To a Zionist I'm a goyim or shiksa or whatever their racist term for pagan is, just like to a Loyalist I'm a Mick or a Teague. Since religions exist, are legal, have billions of adherents it's entirely unreasonable to select one form of 'magic in the sky' and single it out for abuse.I tell Muslims I meet that the despoiler will perish upon the sword of his own perfidy and greed, whatever I can do to hasten that day I will do.

[Kami]

The Palestinian people are the best judges of who they want to lead and defend themAgain, as I asked in the last post, why only the palistinian people?

As an Irish Republican I am a sworn ally of the Palestinian people. Period.Glad to see the thought you've put into it.

I myself do not console myself with any religion as I have no belief in religion however some politicised African Americans and many others find solace and unity in Islam,Thias does not make it a good thing.

We all live in countries where the majority accept some sort of supernatural power [citation needed]

It's racist to single out Islam to be opposed to.No it isn't -.- could people stop throwing "racist" around? it really lessens the impact in its proper use. I could think of many reasons one might single out islam; personal experience, it being predominant in a particular society; likely the reasons that atheists et al single out Christianity in the west.

I've seen the survivors of the Irish troubles console themselves they'll meet the heroes of Ireland in heaven -it GETS THEM THROUGH THE UNBEARABLE .who are we in the safety of our computer stations to take that away from ANYBODY.Stop treating them like children; why should they be forbidden any knowledge the rest of us possess?

The plain fact of the matter is that NOWHERE are the masses ready to abandon the supernaturalagain, stop treating people like idiots. Why are some more able to abandon it than others?

Islamophobia is being carefully cultivated, it is a feature of the current dominant ideology serving the capitalist imperialist desire to despoil Arabia and Africa of wealth.Even where this true, it would be no reason to support Islam.

Fascism was a Christian phenomenonPardon?

[Kami]

We all live in countries where the majority accept some sort of supernatural powerTo expand upon this for a second, it's just an outright lie.
A quick search reveals that;


In 2005 the Eurobarometer Poll found that 38% of people in the UK believed in a god.
In 2006 a Guardian/ICM poll has found that 33% describe themselves as "a religious person" while 82% see religion as a cause of division and tension between people.

so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Destroy capitalism]

Fascism happened in Spain Germany and Italy. all Christians. the current pope has a fascist past.You denying Fascism is historically a position taken by Christians?Ever see the symbolism of the KKK? Try living in a Catholic country. you'd never doubt the Christianity of Fascists or the Fascism of Christians (but some of them are benevolent and gentle,antiwar and critical, or liberation-theology minded, quite polite and harmless really,pick your favourite redeeming feature, but trust me they all want to spread the good news into our children's heads worldwide and claim sole ownership of truth, nothin innocent about that.)
by the way I've had longer than your lifetime to contemplate my relationship to Palestine.

[Dean]

Good article, its true the western media has dubbed Hamas and other similar groups and individuals as "Islamofascist". Its doubtful they even know what exactly fascism entails. Actually, liberals and even some leftist are guilty of labelling anything they disagree with or view in a negative context as being "fascist" as well.

Well, Einstein called the Israeli Freedom Party fascist, so I wonder who to believe here...


But make no mistake about it. There are some distinctly racist and opressive aspects of the rhetoric in both Hamas and Hizb Allah. Regardless, the implementation of such ideas is clearly marred by very racist, apartheid-like tendancies in Israel whereas Hamas and Hizb Allah are more like liberation - oriented relief groups.

[Peacekeeper]

But make no mistake about it. There are some distinctly racist and opressive aspects of the rhetoric in both Hamas and Hizb Allah. Regardless, the implementation of such ideas is clearly marred by very racist, apartheid-like tendancies in Israel whereas Hamas and Hizb Allah are more like liberation - oriented relief groups.

I find the Jew-eating rabbit of Al-Manar very entertaining. :laugh:

[Kami]

Fascism happened in Spain Germany and Italy. all Christians. the current pope has a fascist past.You denying Fascism is historically a position taken by Christians?
Nope; I'm denying that fascism is Christian. Just because some christians are fascists, doesn't mean that all fascists are christian.

Ever see the symbolism of the KKK? The KKK are white supremacists; not everything bad in the world is fascist, they just happen to share the bottom of the barrel.

Try living in a Catholic country. you'd never doubt the Christianity of Fascists or the Fascism of Christians (but some of them are benevolent and gentle,antiwar and critical, or liberation-theology minded, quite polite and harmless really,pick your favourite redeeming feature, but trust me they all want to spread the good news into our children's heads worldwide and claim sole ownership of truth, nothin innocent about that.)
Okay, now I'm certain you just don't know what facism is

by the way I've had longer than your lifetime to contemplate my relationship to Palestine.
and "As an Irish Republican I am a sworn ally of the Palestinian people. Period." is the best you can come up with? that reeks of unthinking dogma.

[peaccenicked]

Fascism is a term that applied to mass counter-revolutionary forces in Italy, Spain and Germany mostly to begin with, only later did it take on its prerogative sense, as 'hate' speech against repressive dictatorships and even lesser forms of illiberalism.
To describe Hamas in such a manner, perhaps, gives us something of the latter. There is nothing to defend in religious conservatism or in Iranian State oppression. There is little devoutly subjectively principled about the forces fighting or preparing for an attack from US imperialism and Israeli expansionism. Criticize them, indeed oppose them
but do not fight them,ie agitate for a war . Socialists must recognize the main enemy. Yes we have enemies amongst our 'supposed allies' better known as the real forces on the ground.
The oppressed cannot be equated with the oppressor. Even if the oppressed have reactionary leadership. Anti-imperialism is not just a matter of subjective consciousness. Indeed if we left it to "third campists", that subjective consciousness would be counter revolutionary, we would negate our primary role in defeating our own imperialist butchers(I am in the Britland)Anti-imperialism is an objective form. It merely involves defending one's local targeted territory from grand larceny from the major powers.

The left that spend most (or try to equally distribute it)of their time disputing the nature of the leadership of the oppressed, purposely try to negate the actual real forces against imperialism with ideological vanguardism. No matter how morally superior they are, theoretically they are throwing their lot in with imperialism and showing great moral cowardice. They are the sort that would only come to picket lines to only sell their newspapers.

The upshot of of it all is that anti-imperialism is not is nice business. It involves looking at the "balance of class forces" to use a cliche, with a view to a substantial victory over imperialism, not a moral clean sheet, however desirable that might be.

This does not stop us showing solidarity with those who are displaced by Hamas or the Iranian regime. It only gives this solidarity context. A context the left critics of Lenin's theory of "imperialism" and the organization HOPI
have truly ignored.
Fighting two battles at once in the same arena(third campism) belittles the main threat which is namely the US and their recent legalization of preemptive nuclear strikes (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html), the most disastrous of the scenarios envisioned by western imperialism.

The issues of war and solidarity with human rights, for the sake of clarity should be formally separated. Indeed under the circumstances it is unprincipled to tie the two into one. The prime folly of third campism.

[Zurdito]

interesting article:

ISR Issue 52, March­April 2007
Interview with Gilbert Achcar
Lebanon and the Middle East crisis
GILBERT ACHCAR, a Lebanese-French academic, writer, and socialist activist,
is the author of Eastern Cauldron: Islam, Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq in
a Marxist Mirror (2004), Clash of Barbarisms: September 11 and the Making of
the New World Disorder (2d ed., 2006), and more recently, with Noam Chomsky,
Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007). His latest
book, with Michel Warschawski, is 33-day War: Israel¹s War on Hezbollah in
Lebanon and its Consequences (2007). He recently returned from a trip to
Lebanon. He was interviewed on January 25, 2007, by ISR managing editor Paul
D¹Amato.

THE PRESS here is portraying the opposition movement headed by Hezbollah in
Lebanon, that is attempting to challenge the Siniora government, as a
movement that is provoking sectarian conflict. What is your take on that?
What is the character of the opposition, and what is it trying to achieve?
IT IS already a fact that the whole conflict is increasingly taking on a
sectarian character. But it is not the sectarian or religious divide that we
were accustomed to in Lebanon¹s past‹I¹m referring to the fifteen-year civil
war of 1975­90, which mainly pitted a predominantly Christian camp against a
predominantly Muslim one‹although things were never as pure or as simple as
that. The sectarian division this time is taking a form that is
unprecedented in Lebanon: it looks more like an extension to Lebanon of the
division that prevails in Iraq, opposing the two major branches of Islam,
Sunni and Shiite. The tension between the two communities is indeed quite
sharp at present in Lebanon itself. True, neither the opposition nor the
so-called majority‹they have the parliamentary majority, but they cannot
claim to represent the majority of the population‹is religiously homogenous.
Both involve various groups belonging to different sects and religions. The
overwhelming majority of Lebanese Shiites stand in the opposition: they are
organized by Hezbollah on the one hand, and Amal on the other hand. They are
allied with one of the two major forces among the Christian Maronites, led
by former General Michel Aoun. You can add to that a motley collection of
various other groups‹Christian forces, a minor force among the Druze
community and some small Sunni forces, which have mainly in common the fact
that they are linked to the Syrian regime.

Facing that in the ³majority² camp, there is the Hariri clan, which enjoys a
clear majority among Sunni Muslims, plus the majority leadership among the
Druze sect, represented by Walid Jumblatt, and a section of the Christians,
composed of various groups, among whom the most prominent are the Lebanese
Forces, far Right forces that were very vicious during the fifteen-year
civil war. Basically, in sectarian terms, the Christians are the only
community that is really split in almost two halves. As for the other
communities, it is clear that on the one hand, the overwhelming majority of
the Shiites stand in the opposition, while the majority of Sunnis and Druze
stand in the ³majority² camp. The opposition is demanding a larger
representation in the government with blocking power (that means one-third
of seats according to the constitution), as well as a new electoral law and
early elections.

THIS SEEMS like a shift since the Israeli invasion last year. After
Hezbollah repulsed the aggression, Hezbollah were the heroes of the hour in
Lebanon, and throughout the Middle East. It sounds like what you are saying
is that things have shifted back again toward greater division. What
accounts for it?

YES, THERE has definitely been a shift, but there were also over optimistic
expectations or readings into the situation at that time. During the war,
the brutality and the terrible fury of the Israeli onslaught had the effect
of more or less unifying the Lebanese people in their condemnation of
Israel. But, if one had followed things more closely, it would have been
clear that there was no radical shift in the political situation. Quickly
after the war, due to the internal political dynamics and the attitude of
the various leaderships, the divisions that existed before the Israeli
onslaught prevailed again‹with even more intensity due to the situation
created by the war itself. The political struggle after the war became much
more sensitive and much more crucial for everyone.

For Hezbollah, the present political confrontation is absolutely vital. The
party has been the target of Israel¹s attempt to destroy it. The attempt
failed, but the project has not been discarded. Washington took over from
Israel and is trying to continue the war by other means. It pressed for UN
security council resolution 1701, through which it got NATO forces to deploy
in southern Lebanon as standby forces to be used in case of domestic
confrontation in the country; that is, in order to give a helping hand to
Washington¹s partners. Since then, Washington has been constantly and
actively pushing toward civil war in Lebanon. Actually, if one had to
summarize Washington¹s policy toward Lebanon as well as toward Palestine, it
could be accurately described as ³incitement to civil war²: civil war
between Palestinians and civil war between Lebanese, not to mention the
unfolding civil war in Iraq. In both Lebanon and Palestine, there is a force
that Washington sees as a major enemy‹Hamas among Palestinians, Hezbollah in
Lebanon. Behind these two forces, Washington targets Iran (Syria, too, but
Iran is Washington¹s main concern). And in both countries there are partners
of Washington: the ³majority² and the Siniora government in Lebanon, Fatah
and Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine.

THAT¹S WHY the U.S. and Israel are releasing money to Fatah in Palestine.
EXACTLY. THEY are even sending them weapons. So these are twin situations,
and at the same time they are symmetrical, like a reflection in a mirror. In
Lebanon, the opposition is fighting against the government (the council of
ministers), which is dominated by Washington¹s partners holding the
parliamentary majority, whereas the president (General Emile Lahoud) is in
the opposition. In Palestine it is exactly the reverse: The government and
parliamentary majority are dominated by Hamas, and the president (Fatah
leader Mahmud Abbas) is Washington¹s partner. In both countries, Washington
is pushing for civil war. In the case of Lebanon, it is resorting to theonly ideological weapon that the United States and its Arab partners have
found to counter Iran¹s influence in the area‹which is sectarianism.

In its effort to shield itself from the U.S. war drive and threats against
it, Iran has used pan-Islamic rhetoric; it has been outbidding all Arab
regimes in anti-Israeli rhetoric‹including provocative stances on the
Holocaust. Tehran is also building up a protective shield in the form of a
network of alliances going beyond Shiite forces. The Iranian-led alliance is
not a ³Shiite axis,² as it is presented to Sunnis by Washington and its Arab
allies. It involves forces that are not Shiite. Hamas is definitely not
Shiite‹even the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organization of
Sunni Islamic fundamentalism, came out politically in support of Iran. Nor
is the Syrian regime a ³Shiite regime²‹it is actually quite far from Iranian
Khomeinist ideology, as it shares the secular ideology of Tehran¹s previous bitter foe, the Iraqi Baathist regime.

ARE WASHINGTON and its allies using the whole idea of a ³Shiite crescent² as an ideological weapon?

IT IS absolutey that. The only tool they have to counter Tehran is to use
sectarianism, and denounce Iran and its arc of influence as a ³Shiite
crescent²‹to the point that there were even demonstrations in the
Palestinian territories recently, where Fatah demonstrators against Hamas
were chanting slogans denouncing Hamas as Shiites, using ³Shiites²
pejoratively as anti-Semites use ³Jews.²

WHY IS this having any success?

UNFORTUNATELY, IN the absence of a Left, of class forces, of progressive
consciousness‹when the dominant forces on both sides are religious forces‹it
is quite easy to stir up such feelings. If they were facing a class party
that crossed sectarian lines, it wouldn¹t be so easy to counter it with
sectarian arguments. But they are facing religious forces, of which the main
organization have a sectarian character: Iran and Hezbollah are religious
Shiite forces. In such conditions, even though Hamas is part of the
alliance, it becomes credible to use the sectarian argument. And this has
been very much fueled by the unfolding civil war in Iraq, which is pitting
Sunnis against Shiites.

HAS SECTARIAN tension gone up in the wake of the execution of Saddam
Hussein?

WASHINGTON¹S ARAB partners used it as a further opportunity to whip up the
sectarian Sunni versus Shiite division. The execution was conducted very
clumsily by the Iraqi government. One gets the impression that Washington
actually wanted it to happen that way, knowing that this would be used by
its allies in the area to isolate Iran and denounce its influence and its
allies. I wouldn¹t be surprised at all if some U.S. hand was behind the
video of Saddam Hussein¹s hanging‹it circulated so quickly and was exploited
in such a blatant manner. Suddenly, all kinds of people, many of whom used
to hate Saddam Hussein when he was in power, turned him into a martyr of
Sunnism. That was quite grotesque!

TO WHAT extent has Hezbollah attempted to act against, or overcome sectarian
divisions‹or at least project itself as part of a broad opposition? It seems
like Hezbollah at least in some respects tries to present itself as part of
a broader political opposition. Would you say that there¹s an element of
that, but that it isn¹t going to succeed because the sectarian logic is too
deep?

YES, DEFINITELY. There is an element of that. Hezbollah is keen on not
appearing as a purely sectarian force, and trying to enlarge its alliances.
That¹s why they are quite happy to have the alliance with Aoun, who is a
major force among Christians; and they try to cozy up to some Sunni forces,
including Lebanese Sunni Islamic fundamentalists, and to whatever kind of
allies they can find in communities other than the Shiite community. But
basically, they are a Shiite organization. In order to be a member of
Hezbollah, you have to be a Shiite. It is by nature not only a religious
organization, but a sectarian one. It has built itself in the Shiite
community and never bothered in any serious manner to build itself outside
it. Its set of priorities is, first, unity among the Shiites‹hence, their
alliance with Amal, the other major Shiite organization. Then they are keen
on avoiding clashes with other Muslims‹the Sunnis‹because it is neither in
their interest, nor in Iran¹s interest. Hence their conciliatory stances.

Inciting sectarianism, actually, is only in the interests of the Saudi,
Egyptian, and Jordanian regimes, and of Washington behind them, because
that¹s the only effective ideological tool they¹ve got. And for the reasons
mentioned, Hezbollah‹although it tries to prevent the situation from
deteriorating into sectarianism‹is, by its very nature, an easy target for
those wanting to whip up sectarianism.

IS THAT why Hezbollah called off the demonstrations in January‹for fear of
sectarian violence spiraling out of control?

HEZBOLLAH UNDERSTANDS that some of Washington¹s partners, Jumblatt and the
Lebanese Forces in particular, are tools of a strategy that aims at
provoking civil war. There is a difference here within the ³majority²
between the forces just mentioned and the Hariri clan, that is, the
Saudi-linked forces: The latter are more ³moderate² in the sense that they
are more cautious. It¹s somewhat like the difference you have in Washington
between the Bush administration and the Baker-Hamilton ³realist² camp. The
Saudi rulers are certainly much more in tune with Baker-Hamilton generally
than with the present Bush administration. They were very happy with the
Bush Sr. administration, but Bush Jr. is a problem for them because his
administration is way too adventuristic. They can see how disastrous the
Bush administration¹s balance sheet is for them already.

WHAT IS the role of Syria in all this?

SYRIA IS still very much involved in Lebanon, of course. This is also one of
the problems with Hezbollah¹s strategy: its links with Syria. Most of the
forces in the opposition are pro-Syrian forces‹all of them actually, except
Aoun who used to be Syria¹s fiercest enemy in Lebanon. Hezbollah is an ally
of Syria, there¹s no mystery about that. Amal is even more closely linked to
the Syrian regime. And the other opposition forces too are closely linked to
the Syrian regime. One of the purposes of the movement now is to block the
international tribunal on Rafik Hariri¹s assassination (Hariri was killed on
February 14, 2005, by a car bomb, and Syrian services are accused of being
behind the assassination), which Washington is pushing through the UN in
order to use it as a tool to exert blackmail on Damascus. This is one of the
obvious purposes of what is going on, and because of that, the Hariri clan
is able to tell its social constituency, its sectarian constituency, ³Look,
these people want to protect the Syrian regime, the murderers of Rafik
Hariri. They want to protect the murderers of the great leader of the Sunni
community,² and so on.

AND THEY want to make Lebanon a protectorate of Syria...

YES, OF course. They use this kind of rhetoric. And unfortunately it is
credible because of the fact that major chunks of the opposition are made up
of completely rotten pro-Syrian forces. That¹s a huge problem, quite far
from the way some people on the left worldwide have romanticized Hezbollah
during the war. Of course, Hezbollah waged a truly heroic resistance. It had
fighters really defending their land, their homes, their families,
admirably: no discussion about that! But to go beyond and believe that
Hezbollah is in a way a left-wing force is not warranted at all in reality.

IN THE press there¹s been talk of union protests against neoliberal policies
and a new agreement in Paris, which is about imposing neoliberal policies in
Lebanon. Has Hezbollah attempted to organize resistance around it?

HERE WE come to the issue of the January 25 Paris III meeting. It was a
meeting of donors, rich donors, both Western and oil countries, gathered to
supposedly help Lebanon. It was called by French president Jacques Chirac,
who has been working in very close alliance with Washington on the Lebanese
issue since 2004. Chirac is one of the strongest backers of Siniora¹s
government and of the Hariri clan‹he used to have very close links with
Rafik Hariri. The conference was organized around an economic and social
program that is a classical ³Washington consensus² program. I¹m referring
here to the IMF-World Bank standard neoliberal measures that were forced on
so many countries during the 1980s and 1990s and are still enforced. The
program of the Siniora government for the Paris III conference is a crude
version of that. You name it you get it: privatization, and value added
taxes instead of progressive income tax. The plan contains all the classical
recipes through which the poorest layers of society are made to bear the
brunt of measures that are supposed to lead to a healthier financial
equilibrium and enable the government to pay back its debt. Lebanon has
accumulated a huge debt over the years (currently over $40 billion). So this
is on the one hand a classic IMF-World Bank kind of program. On the other
hand, this conference was a political tool. It was meant by Chirac, and with
him Bush, as a way of giving strong support to the Siniora government and
the ³majority² in Lebanon.

The way the opposition dealt with this development is very telling. Various
forces of the opposition‹Hezbollah, Aoun‹criticized the program of the Paris
III conference, but quite moderately in fact. They criticized the
government¹s program, as any parliamentary opposition would do, but without
rejecting its core logic. And then you had the leadership of the unions¹
confederation calling for a mobilization against the governmental program.
This leadership is actually closely linked to the opposition and to Syria:
it is a product of the period of Syrian domination over the country. The
demonstration called by the confederation on January 9 against the Paris III
agenda proved completely ridiculous‹2,000 people, in a country now used to
demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people. That¹s because the
opposition did not mobilize in any serious manner. Although they proclaimed
their support, they did not actually mobilize, for the obvious reason that
fighting neoliberalism is definitely not their real concern. They actually
explained that they did not want to jeopardize the Paris conference!

IT SEEMS that one way you could cut across the sectarian divide would be
through political and union organizations that posed a non-sectarian
alternative based on resisting these neoliberal policies.

THAT¹S EXACTLY the point. You¹ve got people trying to do that, fortunately.
That¹s what the Lebanese Communist Party (LCP) is trying to do. The LCP did
not participate in the sit-in of the opposition since it started in downtown
Beirut last December. They stood out of it, stating that they don¹t share
the opposition¹s views, which are aimed at cutting a deal with the majority.
The communists said, ³That¹s not our program, we don¹t think the way out in
Lebanon will come through a deal between sectarian leaderships. What we are
ready to fight for together with the opposition are democratic demands‹a new
electoral law, new elections. But we don¹t want to be involved in a fight
for a deal between sectarian forces that would end up forming a joint
government.² And then, when it came to opposition to Paris III, the LCP
refused to participate in the day of demonstration called by the union
confederation and supported by the opposition because, they said, it was not
credible. They decided to organize their own demonstration, but the
deterioration of the situation obliged them to cancel it.

THE SECTARIAN clashes in Beirut?

YES, INDEED. So the Lebanese Communist Party is trying to stand outside the
two camps and constitute a third force on the basis of a left-wing program.
They¹ve been doing so from the beginning of the period that started after
the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, when you had the two
demonstrations in March, one by Hezbollah and the other by what is now
called the ³majority,² or the ³March 14 coalition.² The LCP did not take
part in either of the two demonstrations, and called for a third one on
another day‹with a few thousand marchers. It was not much compared to the
huge half-million demonstrations that you had from the two major camps. But,
still, it was not completely negligible to have a few thousand people
demonstrating with red flags and slogans devoid of any sectarian
character‹progressive slogans. In the recent war, the Lebanese CP did not
stay neutral, of course. It took part in the mobilization and fighting
against the Israeli aggression, in alliance with Hezbollah‹an alliance
without subordination, as the CP¹s general secretary put it. It was an
alliance from an independent position against Israel, but not an alliance
around the goal of forming a joint venture of sectarian forces for a new
government; the latter is not the CP¹s program.

BECAUSE OF the sectarian set-up of the Lebanese political system, can one
say that it¹s not possible to negotiate deals that don¹t involve an
acceptance of that set-up?

WHAT IS possible is to wage a campaign that is based on democratic slogans,
such as a new electoral law and new elections. The existing electoral law
was designed by the Syrian authorities, it distorts the representation of
various forces. Originally, it was mainly meant to under-represent the force
of Aoun¹s supporters, when the latter was the fiercest enemy of the Syrian
presence in Lebanon. That¹s why the first thing Aoun demanded‹after he came
back from exile when Syrian troops went out‹was a change in the electoral
law. But Washington¹s partners refused to grant him that, and went to the
elections in a coalition with Hezbollah and Amal. One shouldn¹t forget that
it is Hezbollah that brought this majority to power. Aoun got completely
ostracized in the 2005 elections by Washington¹s partners, although his role
had been very active against the Syrian forces. So he moved into the
opposition and, a few months later, he went into an alliance with Hezbollah.
His ambition is very clearly to become president. (By the electoral rules in
Lebanon, the president is a Maronite Christian, and Aoun is a Maronite.)
Aoun thought that the best way to fulfill his ambition was to cut a deal
with Hezbollah, given the huge electoral force they represent as the largest
force within the largest community in Lebanon.

OF THE CP or any other secular Left forces, are there any that put forward
demands to completely rejig the system so it¹s no longer based on sectarian
identification and parties?

IN FACT, the idea that the institutions should be transformed so as to get
rid of the sectarian distribution of seats and power was agreed upon by the
consensus of the Lebanese establishment when the civil war ended in the
years 1989­90. A conference of Lebanese representatives was held in Saudi
Arabia, and they agreed on an agenda for political reform, the Taif
Agreement. Officially, everybody in Lebanon stands for that, but that¹s
purely formal.

Some people however are more serious about changing the political system,
like Aoun for instance. Hezbollah are officially for it, but given that they
are very much a sectarian force, they are torn between their sectarian
character, which fits into the sectarian system, and the fact that since the
Shiites are the largest minority, they therefore stand to gain from a system
in which you don¹t have a predefined sectarian distribution of seats and
power‹where the distribution is settled instead through elections and
parliamentary deals. So, you see the situation is ambiguous. As a matter of
fact, it is the Left, the communists who are most energetically dedicated to
a secularization of the country, beyond the mere abolition of ³political
sectarianism.²

WHAT ARE the origins of sectarian-based politics in Lebanon? Can it be
traced back to the French Occupation?

IT WOULD be too reductive to say that. Sectarian conflict has its origins in
Ottoman Empire-ruled Mount Lebanon in the nineteenth century. Before you had
Lebanon in its present borders, you had a sectarian division between the two
major communities in Mount Lebanon, which were the Maronites and the Druze.
These were two minorities in a region under Sunni Muslim domination. They
coexisted in peace for a very long time. But it was in the nineteenth
century that the first sectarian war broke out in Lebanon, coming in the
wake‹and this is interesting‹of a peasant uprising against feudal landlords
that took place in 1858. The peasant uprising, which started among Maronite
peasants and threatened to spread to the whole peasantry, was channeled into
a religious conflict between Maronites and Druze. The horizontal division
between sects replaced the vertical one between peasants and landlords. This
led to the French landing in Lebanon, as Napoleon III sent his fleet in 1860
to ³protect² the Maronite Catholics. Thus, a historical pattern emerged in
the nineteenth century whereby sectarian divisions were used to prevent
other political and social dynamics, and exploited by foreign powers in
order to control the country.

DIDN¹T THE French aid in the establishment of the political system based on
sectarian divisions?

THE FRENCH came back only after the First World War, with a colonial mandate
from the League of Nations. When the French settled in Lebanon as a colonial
power, they defined Lebanon¹s present borders, enlarging them so that they
had a larger and more precarious mixture of sectarian communities, and they
designed institutions based on a sectarian distribution of power according
to the classical recipe of ³divide and rule.² And that was indeed the origin
of the present Lebanese institutions.

YOU¹VE TALKED about a strategy by Washington and its allies in the region to
foment civil wars. You also talk about the U.S. trying to isolate Iran.
Combine this with the fact that the U.S. is sending more naval forces to the
Gulf and with the ³surge² in Iraq, which seems to be connected with a plan
to go after the Mahdi Army, or sections of it‹is this part of a coordinated
strategy? Is there any possibility, in your view, that this might be some
kind of a prelude to a limited military action against Iran? How would you
fit all these things together in terms of U.S. policy?

IF YOU try to think of U.S. imperial interests in any kind of rational
manner, you would exclude it. But the problem is that you¹ve got an
administration in Washington that doesn¹t respond to any rational standards.

It¹s one of the most irrational teams ever found at the head of the U.S.
Empire in its history. These people are crazy enough to really consider
attacking Iran, all the more that they are in dire straights, stuck in a
quagmire in Iraq. Like a wounded beast getting nastier, they are in such a
bad political position, losing ground so rapidly, that they might very well
be tempted into some kind of poker-like gamble‹double or nothing.

IT DOES seem almost to be a plan of rule or ruin. Iraq is going badly‹just
blow the whole thing up.

THAT¹S WHAT they call the ³surge,² isn¹t it? I guess that, for the time
being, the countervailing forces within the establishment‹all the old
³realists,² the likes of Baker-Hamilton who represent a bipartisan, more
rational imperialist consensus‹are holding that back. But the Bush
administration‹and the remnants of the neoconservative circles around the
administration‹are obviously tempted to try what is actually the equivalent
of accelerating a car into a massive roadblock.

IT¹S NOT a perfect analogy, but remember how after the Tet Offensive, when a
majority turned against the war and it was clear that it was unwinnable, the
U.S. actually spread the war into Laos and Cambodia.

YES, OF course. And then, after that, Nixon-Kissinger drew the lessons of
the situation and basically thought, ³We¹re losing ground, we¹re stuck in a
quagmire. Let¹s talk to the sponsors of the Vietnamese resistance, the
Soviets and the Chinese.² That¹s indeed what they did, and they then
disentangled from Vietnam. And that¹s what the Baker-Hamilton proposal is
about, actually‹³Let¹s talk to Syria and Iran.² But the Bush administration
doesn¹t want to hear about it, because that would contradict every bit of
doctrinal views they¹ve been putting forward at least since 9/11, not to
mention the views expressed by the neocons long before Bush came to power.

THE ELECTIONS here were a clear message. Even though the only other choice
was to vote for Democrats who are supporters of American imperialism‹it was
clearly a vote against the U.S. in Iraq. And here it looks like it may lead
to a revival of the antiwar movement, which has been pretty dormant. Is
there any sense where you are, in Europe, for example, of the developments
here reigniting organized opposition to the war?

THE ELECTORAL defeat of the Bushies has emboldened the opposition to their
policies, of course. The important thing, as you say, is not who won the
election, but who lost it. The fact that this administration is reacting as
if no election had been held, and as if it had not been defeated, just being
stubborn and sticking to its own line and rejecting the majority bipartisan
consensus of the U.S. imperialist establishment‹this way of behaving is
isolating this administration even among the U.S. ruling class itself. Thus,
there is now definitely a new space opening up for the antiwar movement,
which is probably the largest political space you¹ve had since Vietnam. Not
since Vietnam have you had such a sharp division within the ruling class,
with the executive so isolated, and such a mounting opposition to the
escalation. So, yes, this is a great moment for the antiwar movement to put
all its forces into the balance.

[BobKKKindle$]

Fuck that - that is Muslim land. All of it.

Any area of land cannot be assigned to a religion - the tensions which are present in Palestine can only be resolved through a secular state which allows everyone to make use of the area's religious sites, especially in Jerusalem.


Also - they are secular

Hamas is not a secular organization -The full name of the organization if the "Islamic Resistance Movement". The covenant (which is available here (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm)) contains quotes from the Qur'an and argues that the struggle against Israel is a sacred duty for all Muslims, and also calls for a society based on Islamic principles.