The Arab foreign ministers’ decision to form a committee to investigate the truth of what happened in Gaza is a very wise and important one. The amount of contradictory information coming from both sides is enormous. It makes any sound person think carefully before taking any side until some basic facts are revealed. Thus, the hastiness of some Arab countries in taking sides is truly wrong and will only complicate things.
Unfortunately, the partisanship was utterly obvious in most of the media coverage of the split between Hamas and Fatah. We discovered that the majority of Arab countries are supporting one Palestinian party against the other. It brought back memories of a sad scenario when the historical opponents of the Palestinians united with the majority of Arab countries against the elected Hamas government, leading to Palestinians in Gaza Strip being besieged by Israel and cut off from any outside aid.
One couldn’t believe the astonishing similarity in editorial lines between Arab and Israeli newspapers a few days ago. The Israeli media described the Gaza Strip as Hamas-stan and said it would mimic the Taleban system. The Israeli media continuously describes Hamas as a terrorist organization and says that its continued existence could lead to the formation of an Islamic emirate on the borders of Egypt which would threaten all other Arab countries. It’s not surprising to hear this coming from Israel, since it is a natural reaction that supports its positions and aims. But it was truly shocking to see the Arab media adopting the same line and promoting the same vocabulary and terminology. It created so much propaganda and confusion, that it is therefore now imperative to report the reality of what actually happened.
The latest rumors say that we need to support the legitimate Palestinian party. This is just worthless gossip that is full of hypocrisy because in Palestine there are two legitimate parties not one; the president has his legitimacy derived from elections and the government also has its legitimacy because it was elected by a majority of citizens. The two parties were in partial agreement under the umbrella of the unity government that was formed after the Makkah Agreement. But that didn’t last long and wasn’t welcomed, so the boycotting of Hamas by Israel, the EU and the US continued. It indicated that in defining positions, the governing element isn’t the legitimacy of the majority’s support, but the political mood and the power of authority in the first place. One’s legitimate authority is recognized under one condition, when one’s political vision gains the satisfaction of the Israelis and the Americans. Eventually, your authority increases as much as you obey and respond to the plans and initiatives of these two parties in particular.
The list of facts that need to be checked and verified is long so I’m going to sum up the most important ones by posing the following questions:
* Was what happened in Gaza a revolution or was it a wise move by the legitimate government to abort a revolution against it? The documented information noted that on Jan. 10 Abu Mazen said, “We’ve collected recent information that indicates there’s a security plan aimed at a revolution against the government and the democratic choice of the Palestinian citizens.”
* Was what happened a struggle over authority and its president, Abu Mazen? Or was it just an attempt of the Palestinian government to extend its authority over Gaza in an attempt to get rid of Hamas officials? These authorities sought refuge in the president and challenged him sometimes when they refused to implement the security plan that everyone had agreed on. The same authorities caused the failure of the mission of three interior ministers including Nasir Yusuf, Saeed Seyam, who was a leader of Hamas, and Hani Al-Qawasmi. Wasn’t what the government did the same as would be done by other Arab governments when all peace attempts failed to restore security?
* Is it true that this was a collision between Hamas and Fatah? Or was it a confrontation between the government and a group of militia leaders who had special interests? Isn’t what happened something that Israel and the US had wanted for a long time? Didn’t these parties aim at escalating the Palestinian situation to an explosive point, even after the formation of the unity government?
* What was the real role of certain Arab countries who intensified the crisis inside Gaza by supporting the security bodies that resisted the government by providing them with weapons, as well as training them and fulfilling their needs?
* What happened to all the recommendations of the Palestinian groups that met in Cairo in March 2005, when they decided to form a higher Palestinian committee to activate the liberation organization and reform the national council? Who has been responsible for refusing to implement these decisions for more than two years? Had things progressed, wouldn’t that have positively influenced the unity of the Palestinians?
When one observes the Palestinian scene from a distance, one finds that there are essential elements and minor details. Unfortunately, media outlets are aiming to provoke and highlight these minor details. Media outlets zoomed in on, and pinpointed the actions of, many individuals of the executive force and Hamas members during armed confrontations, which was totally wrong. For instance, replacing the Palestinian flag with Hamas’ and breaking into Mahmoud Abbas’ office and burning his pictures. Reporting and exaggerating these and other similar incidents diverted attention away from the basic facts. It caused so much confusion and misunderstanding. Can the investigation committee start working to trace the truth and help us understand exactly what happened?
