by Ikemesit Effiong
If anything, Hamas is doing what all political parties charged with the sovereignty and collective responsibility for its country – respond in like manner, within its resources and capabilities, to the machinations of a foreign aggressor. As for Boko Haram, they are just bloody terrorists.
On July 29, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev, speaking to Fox News, Megyn Kelly about his government’s reaction to the second of three ceasefires brokered by Egypt and the United States aimed at ending a five week offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, made the following comment.
We’re trying to overcome Hamas’ refusal to stop shooting rockets into Israel. These are complex issues because Hamas refuses to play by the rules. This is the challenge, and this is why it’s so difficult because Hamas like ISIS in Iraq or Hezbollah in Lebanon, or even Boko Haram in Nigeria. This is an organization that is a real threat.
It seems to be a new tactic on the part of Israel to paint Hamas, a political organisation that the US, the Eurpoean Union and surprise, surprise, Israel, has labelled a terrorist organisation. Regev echoed a similar sentiment to CNN International’s Jake Tapper, fervently made the case on BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme and told Australia’s largest broadcaster that Hamas is “part of a family of Islamic extremist movements. Whether it’s Boko Haram in Nigeria or ISIS in Iraq or Hezbollah in Lebanon, these are ruthless extremist fanatical organisations that have no compulsion whatsoever about killing innocent people to further their radical extremist theology.”
This sentiment is not one held in isolation. Cue in this concurring piece by American right wing hero and one time Republican presidential wannabe, Newt Gingrinch, who goes as far as saying Hamas is a part of “a clear wave of vicious religious warfare being waged against civilization by fanatics who openly promise and engage in genocidal killing.”
Yet, Mr Regev and Mr Gingrinch, along with their cheerleaders couldn’t be more wrong. We will state the facts but first, a short background may suffice.
Hamas was established in 1987 as a reaction by a growing number of disillusioned Palestinians to Israel’s growing assertiveness in grabbing their land and the perceived occupation of their territories. Its stated aim was to achieve this by political and military means. The U.S however listed them as a terrorist organisation, in part due to their affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood and a subsequent adoption by Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran, who provided Hamas with military equipment and training. Its original charter does call for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian state but political realities have necessitated a slow, if unclearly stated shift. (See this neat explainer by Vox, or if detail is your thing, try this by CNN)
Boko Haram, on the other hand, emerged in its current form in 2009 following a bloody clash between followers of a fundamentalist Islamic preacher with Nigerian security forces. Their unstated, but widely perceived aim is to establish an Islamic state in the north of Nigeria (or is it the whole of the country?), and ridding that state of all vestiges of Western influence, including but not limited to democracy and western education. The name Boko Haram itself, loosely translates as “western education is sinful”. (See this beautiful short explainer by Cheta Nwanze on the origins of the sect).
While Hamas and Boko Haram may share a fundamentalist bedrock as expressed in practical political Islam, there are important differences which cannot be overlooked.
Much unlike Boko Haram, Hamas accepts western education in general, has built and maintained universities for decades and participates in representative democracy. Heck, they organized and contested in various elections in Gaza, including votes in 2006 (where it wrestled power from the other prominent Palestinian party, Fatah) and 2011.
A commitment to democracy confers a form of moral and political legitimacy on a political movement. Thus, you can say that Hamas is seen by the Palestinian people in Gaza as legitimately representing them in pursuing legitimate Palestinian aspirations. In fact, the rise of Hamas led to a reform movement within its Fatah rival, which many Palestinians viewed as corrupt, out of ideas and cohorts with Israel in wrecking suffering on them.
Hamas also does not deliberately kill Palestinians whether Muslims or Christians (overtly at least. Some have made the argument that it does so tacitly by prompting Israel to bomb Gaza because Hamas fighters are generally stationed within civilian urban areas. The challenge with this argument is that much of Gaza is urban). Boko Haram does not discriminate on the basis of faith with its victims. The game is simple – you are either with them, ideologically, or against them. Being Muslim does not win you bonus points.
Its current leader, Abubakar Shekau, often describes prominent Islamic scholars as infidels, calls for their death and has killed a few. Add to that, killing young boys in schools, suicide attacks and the crowning of them all, abducting more than 200 schoolgirls from their dormitory 125 days ago, and you can see that Hamas and Boko Haram seem like day and night.
Hamas, on the other hand, only resists its oppressors by all means, including suicide bombing, a modus operandi of choice for organisations which have a military aim, limited resources and a well organised and funded adversary – like Israel.
Israel has a phenomenal, world class military, and Hamas aims to fight it. Suicide bombing, which many see as sacrificing oneself to save many others, as well as guerrilla warfare (which is particularly suited for fighting in urban areas), becomes a pragmatic solution from a military perspective, and an ancient one at that. From Guy Fawkes in the 15th Century, to Lawrence of Arabia in World War 1, the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and the Falintil in East Timor, the underdogs in armed conflicts have shown a willingness to play against the rules of conventional warfare. Hamas is no different.
Another important difference is the lack of a political consciousness on the part of Boko Haram. As far as insiders, experts and observers can tell us, there is no identifiable political wing of the Nigerian Islamist group. All there is to Boko Haram seems to be a violent, militarised push to achieve its bloody aims and commitments to the ideals of statecraft take a back seat. On the other hand, we have established that Hamas has a functional political arm. To my mind, the members of the political wing of Hamas display a monumental form of moderation in their day-to-day activities. They are easily identifiable and grant interviews. We know more about Khaled Meshaal, the current Hamas political leader than Abubakar Shekau, an international fugitive, with a N1 billion bounty on his head.
Let’s not forget that pound for pound, Boko Haram is a far lethal force than Hamas. If Regev and Gingrinch are right, an organisation ‘dedicated to violence’ would have been able to do substantial damage. As it turns out, Boko Haram is behind the deadliest spree of violence by any single group since 9/11. Before the kidnapping of the Chibok schoolgirls on April 14, it had claimed at least 1,500 lives, according to Amnesty International. In an August 4 statement, the group says the casualty figure for the conflict between the sect and Nigerian security forces now stands at 4, 000. That’s more than the entire casualty figure inflicted by Hamas since 1987.
When you fire wayward, wholly inaccurate rockets into suburban neighbourhoods, you get death tolls like the 200 soldiers and 3 civilians that Israel suffered through five weeks of Hamas military action. When you employ suicide bombers, employ military armoured personnel carriers caught as war bounty to attack villages, schools, mosques and homes aided by AK-47s, rocket propelled grenades, foot soldiers and the latest in weaponry and gadgetry courtesy of Nigerien and Libyan middlemen, you get body counts like the 300 persons killed over a single night in Gamboru Ngala by Boko Haram.
Hamas has shown a willingness to negotiate with Israel, albeit via back channels and a dizzying amount of shuttle diplomacy. Hamas has agreed at least five ceasefires with Israel over its lifetime. It has also returned an Israeli soldier in its captivity. Boko Haram has done, nay, has said it will never do, any of those things – negotiate, release prisoners or bring an end to its violent agenda.
If anything, Hamas is doing what all political parties charged with the sovereignty and collective responsibility for its country – respond in like manner, within its resources and capabilities, to the machinations of a foreign aggressor. As for Boko Haram, they are just bloody terrorists.
That’s the real story Mr Regev.
——————-
Ikemesit Effiong is a legal practitioner, political blogger, research consultant and avid troller of online curiosities. He reads too much for his own good, talks too little for others’ comfort and believes that the best place to be is underwater – with a swim trunk of course. He tweets from @JudgeIyke.
Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.
Nice piece…