Hamas and the Palestinians

 Hamas rules over Gaza since 2007 in a dictatorial way using all means to exercise absolute power. It is extremely tyrannical governmental power. Yet as in any case of power the attitudes and reactions towards Hamas are variable and include the whole scale of possibilities - as well inside as outside Gaza (the latter is specially troubling). Let me deal with this complicated issue in few points:

1. Elections. Israel unilaterally left Gaza in August 2005 (20 years ago) dismantling settlements and leaving Gaza to self-government by Palestinians not without supplying them - together with the USA, the EU, Netherlands and few others in  all necessities. I have written about it few times and will write again soon in another part of Gaza history. Israel hoped for the government to be held by PA led by Abbas as more moderate, but Gazans, tired by corruption of the Palestinian Authority, decided to try Hamas, who won 2006 elections (still a fact many so called pro-Palestinian activists indicate today as a base for they power). The first elections to Palestinian Legislative Counsel were held in 1996 during the peace process based on Oslo Accords. The elections were to be held every 4 years, yet in turbulent rest of 1990s and years of second intifada they were not held. In 2004 Arafat (who did not want to organize another elections) died and in 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza. American President George W. Bush had pushed for Palestinian elections, in part as an outgrowth of his administration’s ideological zeal for spreading democracy in the Middle East through whatever means necessary. Originally the elections were to take place in July 2005 but dew to disengagement they were pushed to early 2006. Palestinian Legislative Counsel has 132 seats in total. In the elections of 2006 Hamas won 74 seats and Fatah only 45 which surprised everyone to some extent and confused American authorities (designated terrorist organization winning elections pushed for by Americans posed some problems, as you may guess). Yet in a poll conducted by Near East Consulting on 15 February 2006 on voters participating in the 2006 PA elections revealed the following responses to major concerns: 

Support for a Peace Agreement with Israel: 79.5% in support; 15.5% in opposition

Should Hamas change its policies regarding Israel: Yes – 75.2%; No – 24.8%

Under Hamas corruption will decrease: Yes – 78.1%; No – 21.9%

Under Hamas internal security will improve: Yes – 67.8%; No – 32.2% 

 As you see the reasons behind the outcome had to do more with disenchantment with Fatah than with true craving for Hamas with its extremist ideology. 

2. Taking of power. As a consequence of 2006 elections Hamas created in February 2006 a government without Fatah. Conditions on the ground deteriorated almost immediately, as Fatah did not take defeat easily. Fatah-Hamas tensions were expressed in a significant deterioration of law and order, and incidents of open violence between the two groups led to dozens of deaths, particularly in the Gaza Strip. Israelis had nothing to do with, until unrest after capturing Gilat Shalit and smuggling him to Gaza in June 2006. As a consequence the movement between Gaza and West Bank was radically restricted for Hamas leaders. In February 2007 Hamas and Fatah agreed for coalition and national unity government, however it did not live long. In June 2007 there was Gaza civil war between Fatah and Hamas (known as battle for Gaza). The war took only 5 days but it was bloody. First Hamas threw a Fatah member from the top of 15-story building, then Fatah killed the imam of main city mosque and threw Hamas militant from the top of 12-story building. In total at least 161 persons were killed and Hamas took completely over the power in Gaza. Human Rights Watch stated in its report that Fatah and Hamas fighters targeted and killed people not involved in hostilities, and engaged in gun battles near and even inside hospitals. The accusations also included public executions of captives and political opponents, throwing prisoners off high-rise apartment buildings, and shooting from a jeep marked with press insignia. PA retained a government in the West Bank (without Hamas). The bloody coup provoked Israeli and Egyptian blockade of Gaza as both countries designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. The blockade is legal under international law terms, however it was always pointed at by anti-Israeli activists as a reason for resistance (nobody questioned the same means imposed by Egypt).

 

 

In 

 

 Above pictures from 2007 Gaza take over by Hamas and the joy showed by its supporters.

 

3. Hamas rule. While at first some in Gaza were overjoyed many were later disillusioned. Hamas never again held another elections and its rule over Gaza was total. It controls schooling (provided mainly by UNRWA and paid for by international community, yet used by Hamas), international aid, judiciary system or what is left of it (as public executions of those accused of collaboration with Israel without any trial are normal), controls women dresses and family life. Yahya Sinwar, infamous architect of October 7 attack, was accused and sentenced for cruelly murdering such accused Palestinians - without any trial. He was sentenced by Israel in the 1980s to four life terms for offenses that included the killing of two Israeli soldiers and 12 suspected collaborators, a role that earned him the nickname “The Butcher of Khan Younis. For all purposes and with proportions regarded Hamas's regime is similar to the Stalinist or Taliban ones.

Here  is a report from 2015 by Amnesty International, an NGO vehemently critical of Israel to the point of changing the definition of some crimes against humanity as they stand in the law acts to be able to accuse Israel of committing them. The same AI accuses Hamas of massive tortures against fellow Palestinians and putting this score on Israelis. Here is this year's example of Hamas torturing civilian Palestine to death.

4. The use of civilians as human shields.  Not only in this but also in previous wars Hamas used and uses civilians as human shields to either prevent attacks by Israel on the organization or cause such attack to bring about unusually high number of non-militant victims and blame Israel for war crimes. The NATO Strategic Communications Center for the years 2008-2014 analyzed and published a report showing such a use of civilians by Hamas. In the report the enumerated most common activities described as shielding by civilians include: 

- firing rockets, artillery, and mortars from or in proximity to heavily populated civilian areas, often from or near facilities which should be protected according to the Geneva Convention (e.g. schools, hospitals, or mosques); 

-  locating military or security-related infrastructures such as HQs, bases, armouries, access routes, lathes, or defensive positions within or in proximity to civilian areas;

- protecting terrorists’ houses and military facilities, or rescuing terrorists who were besieged or warned by the IDF;

- combating the IDF from or in proximity to residential and commercial areas, including using civilians for intelligence gathering missions.

 In the eyes of Gazans, such as Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, Palestinian activist living in the US, very critical of Israeli government (no wonder) but equaly critical of Hamas, who keeps educating how in reality the life in the Strip looks like, writes: "

on Hamas tactics in Gaza:

Please, just die for the cause! It is official: Hamas’s strategy in Gaza City, which is experiencing the beginning of a ground invasion by the Israeli military, is to use the entire population as human shields to cause casualties and stop the Israeli military’s advance. This has been promoted by Hamas mouthpieces, activists, and journalists all over social media and Telegram, whereby they are telling civilians not to evacuate and remain in Gaza City even if the Israeli military issues evacuation orders, urging them to be part of the “existential fight” for the Strip.

A year and a half ago, I wrote about how in the early days of the war, Hamas both directly and indirectly prevented hundreds of thousands of Gazans from evacuating the north, causing thousands of unnecessary civilian casualties, and shared firsthand testimonies from Gazans who were shot at by gunmen affiliated with the terror group while attempting to flee.

Disturbingly, members of Hamas and sympathetic clerics kept citing an Islamic war-fighting doctrine from Surat Al Anfal in the Quran, Ayah 15 and 16, that prohibits turning one’s back to the enemy when facing them on the battlefield. One man told me that his brother was pressured by his Hamas neighbors to stay in Gaza with his family and children. They referenced these Quranic verses over and over and threatened severe consequences now and “on Judgment Day” if he were to flee the incoming IDF invasion. Imagine how many more lives could have been saved had Hamas not used its Islamist ideology to force Gaza’s population into an untenable situation.

The fascist death cult must not be able to repeat this strategy once again; all journalists, activists, humanitarians, and those who can, must do everything to expose this heinous strategy of Hamas and ensure that evacuation orders and information are disseminated widely and that safe corridors for civilians are identified and marked so that Palestinians in the Strip do not needlessly lose their lives on behalf of a Jihadi terrorist outfit whose sole strategy is to cause pressure on Israel through civilian casualties."

 

At the same time one has to remember the celebration in Gaza in the wake of October 7 atrocities. I do not say that everyone was rejoicing the horrible terror attack, but the public display of taken hostages and bodies of victims, when people were seen spitting on living and dead (as Shani Louk's body) or morbid body return ceremonies organized. 

 

However as seen through the eyes of some Palestinians many have had enough of Hamas and certainly living under Hamas rule is equal to living under oppressive, dictatorial force. How come than, that so many in the West try to white wash this terrorist organization, never caring about civilian Palestinians, not allowing them freedom of choice of how to live, at whom to vote, if to support peace process etc. Using them as objects to protect terrorist. And yet some see in them some romantic warrior figures. I must admit it is sickening, for me (coming from Eastern Europe) in a similar way to the cult of Che Guevara - a murderer of hundreds, including many children - as some kind of mass hero.

Francesca Albanese, the UN official, is one of singularly prominent Antisemitic voices treating civilian Palestinians, just as Hamas, simply as collateral damage and usuful tool in fighting Israel.

 

Lets give one more time voice to Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib:

 

“Hamas is wonderful”: Francesca Albanese, a UN official who has become the ‘darling’ of the “pro-Palestine” community, is degrading herself, the UN, human rights, and all that is reasonable by promoting Hamas as a mere political entity, which is just “misunderstood.” This UN official went out of her way to be accommodating for Hamas’s terror narrative and claimed that the organization built schools and was merely an ‘administrative body’ when in fact nothing in Gaza after the 2005 withdrawal of Israeli settlements was built by the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot.

Worse, she repeats the horrific out-of-touch narrative that is ironically stated by many anti-Palestinian voices, which is that the terror group was ‘elected’ by Palestinians and is therefore somehow legitimate nearly twenty years after the infamous 2006 elections. Hamas’s initial start began with establishing local, small-scale clinics, welfare, and educational facilities for a narrow constituency. This has been blown out of proportion by clueless academics and ignorant “experts” who want to paint Hamas as a social phenomenon as much as it is a terrorist and militant one.

What Albanese says is demonstrative of why large parts of the UN are no longer respected on the global stage. This is why human rights are no longer respected as a field, given that numerous organizations and agencies are only interested in Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinian people, not the horrendous actions of a terror army that is ISIS-like in its disregard for basic human rights principles. This is why UNRWA is no longer trusted because it allowed itself to be penetrated and used by Hamas and terrorist operatives in Gaza instead of standing up and refusing to be a tool in the organization’s arsenal.

This is why large swaths of the so-called ‘human rights community’ are a joke because they have run cover for Hamas, and refused to speak out against the group’s torture, shooting, executions, abuses, and transgressions in Gaza because they chose to be activists instead of actual human rights professionals, and because they chose to be tools in their anti-Israel activities instead of being focused on a bigger and holier mission that knows no boundaries.

Bourgeois Western leftists who have never experienced life under Islamist, terrorist, and authoritarian regimes are not credible spokespersons for human rights and shouldn’t be taken seriously when pretending to know what they’re talking about. Francesca Albanese is merely a representation of a much wider symptom. She and hordes of activists and voices like hers must be shunned, confronted, and isolated to pursue a pragmatic pathway forward.

Free Palestine from the “pro-Palestine” industrial complex; free Gaza from Hamas; free Palestinians from Western activists; free Gazans from the “pro-resistance” types; free Gazans from pro-Hamas voices."

History of Gaza Strip territory (part two - until disengagement; aka how the Hamas was created and gained power)

 I have finished the last piece of Gaza Strip history, essential to understand what is happening, during Camp David process of acquiring peace with Egypt.

The truth is that few things that happened earlier have had outstanding importance for what came next. Let me come back a bit to some occurrences from 1970s:

 In 1978 in Gaza, still under Israeli military administration, Islamic Center has been registered. It was an offshoot of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, vehemently opposed to Jews and Zionism, and standing, among others, behind a great Arab revolt in British Palestine (1936-1939) seeking to forbid Jewish immigration into the mandate, unfortunately pretty successfully, at the time when it was a matter of life and death for Jewish emigres. The Center was registered by Sheikh Yassin, a quadriplegic (due to childhood sport accident) imam from Gaza teaching in UNRWA schools from 1958 and arrested by Egypt once for belonging to Muslim Brotherhood. Initially Israel viewed Islamic Center as an alternative to PLO with no military or terrorist aspirations and thus provided some financial support to it for the first 10 years leading to subsequent legend about creation of Hamas by Israel. Islamic Center, while for the first 10 years not violent or broadly anti-Israeli, took control of social services, schooling, and life rules in Gaza strip. It was deeply religious pursuing fundamentalist Islam. It was undoubtedly Israel's mistake, both the harshness of early 70s military administration of Gaza and support for what looked like peaceful, though very oppressive towards Palestinians, alternative to PLO. 

In 1983 Yassin was arrested for the first time for leading terrorist organization which evolved from Islamic Center (and released as a consequence of negotiations with PFLP - Jibril agreement).

The situation changed in 1987 with the start of first intifada and rebranding of Islamic Center for Hamas together with showing military, terrorist and very anti-Israeli attitude. Initially Hamas was treated as counterweight to PLO, but, however these two movements were indeed rather fighting each other, Hamas soon started the campaign of terror. Being under great influence of Iran from the very beginning of Ayatollahs' regime, it adopted suicidal methods of terrorism, embraced by Shea Islam and previously extremely rare in Sunni one. In effect Hamas was de-legitimize in 1989 and Yassin arrested and sentenced  to life imprisonment for ordering killings of alleged Palestinian collaborators the abduction and murder of Israeli soldiers Ilan Saadon and Avi Sasportas.

When the peace process started in 1990s Hamas condemn it and introduced it's reign of terror directed against peace talks. As indicated in other posts Arafat, living at the time in Gaza, was aware of many of the prepared terrorist plots proving his lack of sincerity and real engagement in peace process (among others he warned a young Swedish diplomat working to bring about peace, against visiting Jerusalem on the very day when bus 18 was targeted by suicide bomber under the auspices of Hamas). Nevertheless, Arafat at least paid the lip service to the peace process and maybe (just maybe) would take it a bit further without the Hamas campaign. To discredit in the eyes of Israelis the peace process Hamas, already after the end of intifada and during peace process, orchestrated a campaign of terror with no less than 13 terror attacks during less than 3 years which killed no less than 138 Israelis. The attacks were the most often and the worst after PM Rabin assassination, as extremists hoped this is their chance to undermine peace process. Here how it looked: "On Sunday 25 February 1996 a Palestinian student stepped onto a crowded bus in Jerusalem and detonated a bomb, killing twenty-six Israelis. One week later a second Palestinian detonated a bomb on a Jerusalem bus, killing eighteen Israelis. The following day a known Muslim extremist lay down on a busy street in Tel Aviv and blew himself up along with ten Israelis. These attacks were designed to undermine and halt what extremist groups viewed as the humiliating and misguided Palestinian–Israeli peace process." (after Sabotaging the Peace: The Politics of Extremist Violence by Andrew Kydd and Barbara F. Walter).

Of course on the Israeli side there were also people vehemently opposed to the peace process. After assassination of Rabin in 1995, by such Jewish extremist, Yigal Amir, Shimon Perez, who became a new PM, was  dedicated to continuing peace process, although he had his reservations. He was not sure if two-state solution is the proper one, true, but he was dedicated enough to the state of Israel, the will of constituents and Rabin's achievements to cautiously continue with peace talks. Unfortunately to strengthen his position he declared the new elections for May 1996. He showed a 10% majority in polls and expected to win easily, which probably would have happened if not for Hamas. Vehemently opposed to the peace process Hamas orchestrated such an avalanche of suicide attacks (4 of them during 3 month, killing at least 60) that the Israeli public lost their belief in the peace process. The young (at the time) Israeli politician, very opposed to the two-state solution, and favoring militaristic approach to Palestinian demands, won the election exactly because this wave of terror. Hamas was pleased, confrontation and not cooperation and co-existence was its goal. The winner, who became PM for the first time in 1996 was also pleased. This ambitious politician was Benyamin Netanyahu. 

A year after becoming PM Netanyahu authorized the assassination of Meshaal, Hamas's head of political bureau in retribution for Hamas’s suicide bombings. The plot went avry and to rescue peace treaty with Jordan Netanyahu had to release Sheikh Yassin from prison. The proposition of such deal was Netanyahu's idea and some claim it was a main goal. The same year the USA recognized Hamas as terrorist organization and two years later Jordan expelled Hamas bureau from Amman. 

In 1999 Netanyahu lost power and the PM became Ehud Barak. His 2000 peace proposal, that granted Palestine almost everything they asked but was still rejected by Arafat, I described here. How was the life in Gaza in these years? In 1994 80% of Gaza territory was left by IDF troops as a result of Oslo Accords. Yet the security checks were present, which were to control movement of Gazans to Israel. Still, many Palestinians had right to work in Israel, however after the intifada the number of permits went down. In 1990s it was normal for many Gazans to go to work to Israel daily, and for Israelis to come to Gaza for shopping at the markets or to visit beaches. Definitely there was lots of reservations between groups, yet for example in kibbutz Nahal Oz the peace festival gathering together Gazans and Israelis from kibbutz was celebrated from 1994 with a hope (unrealized) to bring two societies closer. There were friendships, working together, some understanding in both groups. Unfortunately the pulling apart forces were also present on both sides, albeit on the Palestinian one much more viscous.

In 2001 Ariel Sharon, at the time standing as a leader of Likud party, that he himself created years earlier, won the election and took PM sit. It was during extremely bloody second intifada when the suicide bombings in Israel were plenty and people lost any remnants in peace process that they possibly held before. 

Sharon, whose political legacy is complicated and remains dividing figure for many, wanted to address the security and peace issues in the best interests of Israel. He was a skeptic when it comes to total peace between Israel and possibly created Palestine, yet he was also realist and knew Israel should somehow change the dynamics. The intifada, peace process destroyed by Hamas with the help of Arafat and Israeli far right, the international standing - all had to be addressed. He addressed it by few very unique decisions. He started building of the wall between West Bank and Israel proper, he proposed unilateral evacuation of Gaza including existing 21 settlements and - facing the resistance of his party - he left Likud and created Kadima. 

The era of peace process unfortunately ended in failure. The second intifada was raging around. Gaza was to become experiment in Palestinian self-governance in a new approach to possible peace or at least truce. The next chapter in Gaza's history was disengagement and what came next. Unfortunately the series of bad decisions on both sides were already heavy.

Nevertheless it was Israel that finally backed from Gaza, allowed a lot of help to reach it and hoped for the best notwithstanding many victims on Israeli side. Hoping for the best. Unfortunately Gaza was already under strong Hamas's influence becoming fast the fallen state, not for the lack of money, for the lack of will to build a state instead of fighting its neighbor.  

Yasser Arafat and his PLO part 4 - how Arafat prevented the creation of Palestinian state

 In 1987 in Gaza (at the time under military Israeli administration, with schooling and health care organized by UNRWA and growing in might though still very quiet Hamas (created in 1982 by Muslim Brotherhood with sheikh Yassin as its deciding force) another Israeli was stabbed to death. Such attacks occurred not constantly, but not rarely. More about Gaza soon. Few days later 4 Palestinians from Gaza were driving home from work in Israel when their car was hit by a truck on the crossroads. They were killed. It was an accident, but Gazans interpreted it as revenge for stabbing an Israeli. That is how the first intifada started.

Today it is called the intifada of stones, but they were stones, knives and Molotov cocktails. During next 6 years 1087 Palestinians and 160 Israelis were killed with over 3000 Israelis wounded.

During the intifada the series of meeting started taking place between Israeli officials and Arafat, living at the time in Tunisia. Particularly important was Madrid meeting in 1991 after the first Gulf War. It was important because the invitation was issued by President Bush, but Michail Gorbachev was also in attendance and the USSR was a co-sponsor. Invited delegation came from Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Jordanian delegation co opted Palestinian delegation. Considering that a lot of Israeli-Palestinian conflict was de facto hot spark of cold war with PLO financed, trained, armed and supported by Soviet Russia which also supported Egypt and Syria in their wars with Israel, such initiative at the time and in the year when Soviet Union collapsed was very important. 

The Oslo peace process was initiated in Oslo in 1993 and thought as a way to achieve two state solution. Israel was first to partially leave Jericho and Gaza. Later areas A in the West Bank and than areas B. Joint patrols and police cooperation with Palestinian forces were to be created and Palestinian Autonomy was created during the process with first elections in 1996. Arafat was elected as a president. Notably next presidential elections in Autonomy were held after his death and so far Abbas is at 20th year of his 4-year-term. 

Israelis indeed withdrew from Jericho and most of Gaza and the cooperation in security matters was to some extend created but Arafat never really committed to the peace process. Israelis were, understandably, distrustful of PLO commitment to preventing terror attacks, but they shared information with PLO. 

In wake of  peace talks Arafat moved from Tunis to Gaza, which, at the time, was not restricted enclave and hundreds of Gazans were going each day to work in Israel whereas bus lines were entering Gaza through the checkpoints. 

To understand what happened next, one must understand deep divisions in both Israeli and Palestinian societies. The whole first 30 years of Israel's history, as well as for all the time of Yishuv existence the dominating power in Jewish, later Israeli, social fabric was secular, left-inclined Zionist movement cooperating with more religious but also Zionist movement, mostly of Ashkenazim descent.  But the demography was working against it, not to mention history on the ground. After the fall of Golda Meir government as a result of Yom Kippur war the political right in Israel started gaining momentum. The right started its march with Menachem Begin and his Likud party, yes the same party that is now under Benjamin Netanyahu. On the Palestinian side "left" was PLO with Arafat, with Islam more as a unifying power than true commitment, much more nationalist than religious in every aspect and strongly backed by USSR. The Palestinian right - Hamas - created during the first intifada by Muslim Brotherhood, was fundamentally Islamic, calling for jihad. The divisions run deep at the time and remain deep today.

To Hamas talks with Israel were treason. The fact that two-state solution could even be considered was abomination. Hamas never really cared about Palestinian state, but always deeply cared about destroying Israel, as was obvious from the start (and written in their charter). In a wake of Oslo peace process Hamas was dedicated to torpedoing them and carried the chain of terror attacks in Jerusalem and other places to drive the talks to standstill. Israel had its few, but notable, extremists. Two of them were of particular importance:  Baruch Goldstein, an American-Israeli physician and extremist of the far-right ultra-Zionist Kach movement, who in February 1994 shot and killed 29 Arabs in Cave of Patriarchs mosque in Hebron, a place important for both religions, which brought about Arab strikes, and Yigal Amir, ultra nationalist opposed to peace process, who in 1995 assassinated Icchack Rabin. After the assassination Shimon Perez took power and the elections were to be held in 1996. Perez wanted to continue peace process, and, even with all the turmoil in both Israel and Palestinian territories, he had strong support of - still hopeful - Israelis. Hamas, wanting to prevent peace talks, orchestrated a series of suicide terrorist attacks through the whole first half of 1996. This changed the dynamics of the electoral process paving way to power for the first time for a young, ambitious and very far right politician -  Benjamin Netanyahu. 

What about refusing Palestinian state by Arafat? 

In 2000  Ehud Barak, a then PM of Israel, and Yasser Arafat met in Camp David with then President of the US Bill Clinton. It was a last attempt to revive failing peace process after the series of terrorist attacks (by Hamas but with Arafat silent approval as in the case of bus 18 bombing described here. The negotiations didn't go easy, but Clinton and Barak were determined.

The offer Barak put on the table included creating of de-militarized Palestinian state (understandable that after 3 major wars with Arabs, countless terrorist attacks, intifada and while the terror campaign was ongoing, demilitarization of a new state was crucial) with the territory consisting of 92% of West Bank, the whole Gaza, parts of Eastern Jerusalem. The bulk of settlements was to be removed, and the rest, concentrated on 8% of the West Bank territory annexed by Israel with the swap of land for some other to compensate Palestine for this loss. Arafat, who previously declared he is open to any proposition in mid-90% of so called Palestinian territory said "no". He did not even put his own proposal, he just left the room. Here are the words of former President Clinton about the negotiations: "The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism." Barak summed them up saying: ""He did not negotiate in good faith; indeed, he did not negotiate at all. He just kept saying no to every offer, never making any counter proposals of his own".

The story goes that presented with the proposal Arafat said that he only needs to address the details to say "yes". The "details" turned out to be so called "right of return" for all Palestinians whose ancestors lived in today's Israel effectively dismantling Israel. Think what would be reaction to demanded "right of return" of all British whose ancestors lived in Ireland to Ireland, all Americans whose ancestors lived anywhere in Europe to respective European countries, all Chinese whose ancestors ever lived in Russia (e.g. when Vladivostok was Chinese) to Russia, all Hindus whose ancestors left Pakistan in 1948 (same year) to Pakistan and so on and so forth. 

Arafat did not want Palestinian state. He wanted the destruction of Israel even when he was claiming to negotiate. I will just remind you accepting by Jews the propositions of Peel commission, of 1947 resolution - they wanted the state. However small for starters. But the state. Arafat was offered 95% of the whole so called Palestinian territory and East Jerusalem. He said "no" and left the room.

Clinton never understood it. When Arafat called him at the beginning of 2001 to thank him for successful term he allegedly told him: "I am a failure, and you made me one."

1990s were time when the peace looked like real, touchable perspective. Due to Jewish extremists like Amir, and right politicians like Netanyahu, but first, foremost and with almost exclusive power, due to Arab terrorist organizations, both PLO under Arafat and Hamas under sheikh Yessin, the peace did not come. The table started to turn in different direction and the hope was all but lost. I don't know if it will reappear and when. I know though, that Arafat was never committed to two state solution, all he was after was destruction of Israel, no matter the prize, including the prize to be paid by Palestinians.  

 

Film about October 7 booted out from festival

 

The Canadian filmmaker Barry Avrich made a documentary about astounding rescue mission by retired IDF Maj. Gen. Noam Tibion who, on October 7, 2023, who went to kibbutz Nahal Oz, attacked by terrorists, where his son, daughter-in-law and two granddaughters lived.

On his way to Nahal Oz the general rescued some victims of Nova festival and some wounded soldiers, while he himself was helped by soldiers hurrying to rescue civilians where and how they could. Brotherhood among ordinary citizens, rescue mission against all odds and raising against common, terrible danger that unifies people above divisions is a powerful story.

The film was to make premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) in September this year. The original title “Out of Nowhere: The Ultimate Rescue” was changed to “The Road Between Us” at the request of TIFF.

Recently, according to film making team, they were receiving signals that they should pull back from the festival. They did not. This week the film’s invitation has been withdrawn by TIFF organizers. TIFF said the documentary was removed "because general requirements for inclusion in the festival, and conditions that were requested when the film was initially invited, were not met, including legal clearance of all footage." (according to Associated Press). TIFF statement continued that: ““The purpose of the requested conditions was to protect TIFF from legal implications and to allow TIFF to manage and mitigate anticipated and known risks around the screening of a film about highly sensitive subject matter, including potential threat of significant disruption.”

These “legal clearance of all footage" refers to the use of Hamas’ live streamed video of the rape, murder and kidnapping of Jews. Yes, you heard it right, organizers insisted the filmmakers need the rights from the terrorist group to use their horrific footage of the massacre. And TIFF was supposedly afraid to show the truth from terrorists’ go-pros because they might have been sued by the murderous terror organization.

In reality they were probably concerned about security issues, similar to ones I described writing years ago (2011) about Israeli Film Festival held in Dublin, Ireland. Nevertheless, when completely stunned filmmakers stated that TIFF has “defied its mission and censored its own programming by refusing this film” the matter became very public. American, Canadian and Israeli media commented the situation widely.

That caused TIFF’s reaction and yesterday, late in the evening, its CEO, Cameron Bailey, offered his “sincere apologies for any pain this situation may have caused” adding that it was never his “intention to offend or alienate anyone.” The milk has spilled but Cameron Bailey stated that he remains “committed to working with the filmmaker to meet TIFF’s screening requirements to allow the film to be screened at this year’s festival.” We will see in September. Nevertheless, the pure idea that the material made available as life streaming of the massacre by Hamas needs to be cleared legally by them in order to remind how this war has started and what really happened on October 7 (and about what they bragged publicly) is exorbitantly absurd.  Or was it, before we moved to post-truth world?

 

 

Faked pictures of Gaza by Anas Zayed Fteiha

 Few posts ago I was writing about hunger in Gaza. Nobody questions that living in the war zone is awful. Yet there is a difference if people are living in active war zone (terrible in itself) or if on top of that there is famine in the region/ city/ vicinity. Ukraine, the zone of active war for over 3 years does not have famine though in parts it is hard to get and store enough food supplies and conditions of life are desperate.

So is there a hunger in Gaza Strip? Honest answer is: I have no idea. But I very much doubt so, based, among others, on the very pictures of hunger in Gaza that recently are making careers in media.

If there is famine on a given territory  and you want to show it to the world you don't need to:

1) use 10 years old pictures of Yezidi girl kidnapped by ISIS (by the way IDF discovered a Yezidi girl in Gaza - she was sold there as a slave by ISIS fighter, now she is free, that was still in the previous year),

2) use Syrian child picture from 2018 to show it,

3) use pictures of children with cerebral palsy or genetic disease,

4) stage pictures of people fighting for food (read below).

 But you may (and should if you are a good photographer):

1) show hungry people in groups and belonging to various age groups,

2) show moving pictures or just films,

3) interview relief and aid workers and show their work. 

Moreover, in an era and place when everybody, absolutely everybody carries with them camera capable of making pictures and movies, and everybody is capable of publishing them or even streaming in real time (there might not be internet in Gaza all the time, but in many places and at certain hours it is, according to all sources, and phones can also work just on signal) it can't be hidden. Hamas was capable of live streaming its atrocities like shooting Eden daughter in Nahal Oz  when there was still battle. Yet we have 2 million people in Gaza who presumably suffer from famine and definitely don't like IDF (though some of them may at this point dislike Hamas more, I should hope, putting the blame where it belongs) and only pictures of hunger show small and very ill children in condition that might have deteriorated in war but was always desperate. We have pictures of these children with healthy siblings edited out. Finally, as Bild and Suddeutche Zeitung revealed yesterday, we have staged pictures of people lining for food. Turkish photo reporter  Anas Zayed Fteiha, author of these pictures, was filmed when staging them with people acting quite a time before food was delivered.

According to historian and photography expert Gerhard Paul, cited in an investigation by the Süddeutsche Zeitung , Hamas has complete control over image production in the southern Gaza Strip. “ The goal is to arouse sympathy in the West and anger against Israel, ” he notes.

He explains that many images from Gaza are not necessarily fake, but are presented in a way that directs public perception. “ It is a strategic emotional mobilization of memory and image ,” he emphasizes. Similar instances of manipulation have been recorded since 2002, when the historic PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, was photographed “dark” and alone in his headquarters, while, a few minutes later, videos showed him in full light - simply because the reporters had agreed to turn off the lights for the “ good shot .”

  

Below is a picture from Bild

Per Economic Times: "A well-known Gazan photographer faces criticism after a German investigation revealed that some of his viral hunger photos were staged. Several major European agencies have severed ties with him, reigniting debate about media ethics, bias, and the dangers of manipulated war imagery."

And again: there is no doubt that life in Gaza is now preposterously difficult, dangerous and unhappy for great majority of people there. Poor, with small children and without links to Hamas have it especially hard. But famine? 

History of Gaza Strip territory (part one - until Camp David)

 Today Gaza is in the epicenter of all news and all the world and his wife is writing about this tiny piece of land. But if one asks the average paper-reader or news-consumer in the West: "ok, so where did all these Palestinians came from and how did the problem started and when?" few will be able to answer. Most answers will probably be ideological, some will refer to some occupation, even more to conflict with Israel but almost nobody will be able to answer since when is Rafah a border town, when did Israel first took Gaza, where was it before and how was it managed before Hamas.

Do you want to dive into this fascinating story?

 Do you recognize the famous site above? The picture is from the collection of the museum in Auckland, New Zealand.

If not, don't worry. Few of the people knowing it well today would have recognized it. This is Rafah crossing. And it is the oldest picture of it I could find, yet still done 11 years after Rafah became an international crossing.

Gaza is a very old settlement, which we know from the Bible and archeology. Archeology puts the oldest settlements in Gaza at about 5,000 years. Bible tells us this is the place where king David conquered Goliath and Samson took the door to Gaza back with him (which did not prevent him from suffering horrible fate later). This was part of the corridor between Africa and Asia,  Egypt and Babylonia, one of the highways of the ancient world. It was settled, according to the Bible by Philistines, enemies of Israel, and the very name Palestine derives from this name of Israel adversaries and was invented by Romans to humiliate Israelites after collapse of the Bar-Kochba uprising against Rome in 135.

Yet today we are preoccupied with you contemporary history of this place so let me start in 1906 when Rafah became the international border town.

This was the border between two empires: British, which at the time held the Egypt and all-the-most-important Suez Canal, and Ottoman, which among its vast territories held what later became Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and so called Palestinian territories, Gaza included. The arbitrary drawn border was following straight line from Rafah to Taba and disregarded any peoples or cultures  native to the region. Not that there were many, it was mostly unoccupied desert with few bigger settlements.

 

Above you may see the map of Ottoman empire before the I world war, and however it already lost some of it territories: Romania, Bulgaria (to great extend), Serbia, Montenegro, parts of Tunisia etc. it was still a vast territory. All the historical Israeli territories were just a very distant province. Yet in Rafah it bordered the biggest empire of the time, the one on which sun never set. The border was peaceful for the next 11 years. However as a consequence of I world war, which Ottoman Empire joined on the side of Central States, while the UK on the side of Entente Cordial, the map changed drastically. This war brought end to 4 empires and Ottoman was one of them.  

 

 This is a map of Middle East around 1920 with British mandate for Palestine, French mandate for Syria and Lebanon, British mandate for Mesopotamia and so on.... Both British and French promised autonomy and states to various peoples at various pieces of this land. Often the territories overlapped. There were plans to create Kurdistan that were never realized. The piece of land important for the future Gaza (and Israeli and Jordan and Palestinian) history was all under the British mandate for Palestine. In 1917 British promised this land to Jews. That did not stop them from making promises to Arabs. Both nations wanted the whole territory of Mandate. Here's how it looked:

 

In 1921 British divided mandate giving a small part to Syria, some 80% to Transjordan - independent kingdom connected to British where the throne was offered to King Abdullah, brother of Iraqi king Faysal. Jews, disappointed in the division, as they were forbidden to live in Transjordan were promised remaining 20% of the mandate. Yet British very well knew how to rule their territories and were talking with Jews behind Arab backs and with Arabs behind Jewish backs.

As for Gaza, when you compare this map with a contemporary one, you realize that it was well inside the British mandate, yet still close to border with Rafah remaining a border town, since Egypt gained its independence in 1922. The conflict between Jews and Arabs grew in the mandate, with both sides increasingly hostile to each other and to British. After the II world war British were not able to hold to it any longer and signaled that they want UN to divide the land. Nevertheless the last colonial power to hold these land was UK. 

Disregarding the 1921 division of the mandate, which gave Arabs 80% of it UN in its 1947 resolution proposed further division of the remaining part. This is UN's proposition:

 

The plan, though neither side was happy, was accepted by Jews, desperately needing a state to bring the Holocaust survivors and release interned by British authorities so called illegal immigrants, and refused by Arabs. 24 hours after declaration of independence Israel was attacked by 6 Arab armies and the war of independence started. It ceased (only with demarcation lines, not real borders as no Arab state recognized Israel at the time) in January 1949.

These were Israeli armistice lines. Not so different from the proposed division, although in the north gains were spectacular. Gaza strip, as the piece of land became known, belonged to Egypt, and armistice lines originally were just ditches dug in the sand. However it's demography changed. Before the war of independence Gaza strip had approximately 100,000 inhabitants, afterwards approximately 400,000.

 Gaza belonged to Egypt and there were frequent exchanges of fire across armistice lines, however they were still just ditches. On the borders on Israeli side were few military outposts and few kibbutzim. Nahal Oz, the kibbutz now known as one of the primer victims of October 7, was established in 1953 from the scratch by a group of 19-year-olds. Fedayeens (terrorists from Gaza) often penetrated Israel and kibuzniks tried to patrol the fields. Some of the Palestinians coming from Gaza wanted to reach their old houses or fields, which was tragic aftermath of the changes caused by war. Others were thinking about attacking any Israelis. In 1956 Roi Rothberg was killed from ambush, and his body carried back to Gaza and mutilated . Sounds familiar?

In 1956, after the war with Egypt, Israel gained Gaza and Sinai Peninsula for the first time but returned them in 1957 to Egypt. The next decade was relatively quiet. 

As a consequence of 6-day-war Israel gained again the Gaza and Sinai Peninsula. Acting on advice from Moshe Dayan Israeli government tried to keep the border between Gaza and Israel open. At first it worked. Gazans were able to work in Israel and even small Israeli salary was quite hefty in Gaza. Israelis from kibbutzim near Gaza were going shopping to the strip and were enjoying beaches, one of the most beautiful Mediterranean beaches there are. Many Gazans worked in kibbutzim, people started making friendships, it looked fine. In 1968, right after the war the remuneration received by Gazans working in Israel constituted 2% of the Gaza's budget, in 1975 already 31 % (and in the meantime there was Yom Kippur war). However the Yom Kippur war, comparison between conditions in Gaza and in Israel and fedayeens were stretching relationships. When in 1979 Egypt and Israel made a peace treaty in Camp David Egypt very much wanted to regain control over Sinai Peninsula but refused to accept Gaza. Below are two fragments of contemporary Egyptian voices:

"Egypt never annexed Gaza like Jordan did with the West Bank. Yes we held a certain degree of de facto control after the 1948 war but we established Gaza as first a headquarters for a Quasi-Palestinian government which was later dissolved by Nasser. If the United Arab Republic had ever succeeded it would have been part of a Palestinian state within the Republic and not part of Egypt.

So in short Gaza was never planned to be part of Egypt whether by the Monarchy, Nasser or Sadat.

Palestinians living in Gaza (...) did not see themselves as Egyptians and Egyptians did not consider them as such"

"Gaza was run by Egypt but Sadat was a genius because probably realizing what governing it would entail he “returned” it to Israel as part of the peace deal.

Not his country’s problem anymore is it? So Egypt got their sovereign lands back, got rid of Gaza, and had enjoyed 43 years of peace with Israel and all the benefits associated with a lack of a war with a neighbor.

As an Egyptian I’d probably be praying to Sadat cause he paid with his life for it.

The main issue though is that even if Egypt begins administering Gaza, unless they come down hard on terror groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) which may alienate their local populations in Cairo, when Hamas shoots their next volley into Israel… does Israel blame Egypt? Do they declare war on Egypt? If they enter Gaza and confront Egyptian soldiers who have to administer and defend the territory are we risking war between Egypt and Israel?

Why would Egypt want to be responsible for this? They have their hands full with building a new Cairo or something 🤣 plus all those pyramids Jewish slaves (edit: joke ) built are mobbed by tourists.

Egypt got enough problems".

 Other problems, political, social and humanitarian started to evolve during early 70s and continued to grow: growing terrorism of Gazans, military abuse by Israel in early 70s, first Israeli settlements in Gaza and division on both sides with regards to values and approaches, mostly between religious and secular. These factors complicated the story. Maybe if Israel wasn't so self assured after 6-days war and so enraged and spooked after Yom Kippur war... maybe if Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam wouldn't found their way to Gaza... Maybe if not Begin with Likud but Holds Meir with socialist secular party was a PM during Camp David... Maybe if fedayeen were opposed by Gazans while there was a chance... The history is full of maybes. 

Please let me know what you think and what would you like me to continue with.