The Tide Rises the Tide Falls
Two occurrences in the sphere of international relations between Israel and the EU caused confusion and consternation to many who follow this field.
On the one hand, on Tuesday morning, December 3rd, The European Union Court of Justice ruled that products made in Israel must be labelled as such and may not be marketed as products made in Israel. “Foodstuffs originating in the territories occupied by the State of Israel must bear the indication of their territory of origin, accompanied, where those foodstuffs come from an Israeli settlement within that territory, by the indication of that provenance”, the court (the EU’s highest legal authority) announced in a press release[1].
The decision was widely condemned by Israel and pro-Israel figures and advocacy groups, with Israel’s Foreign Ministry rejecting the ruling, Israel’s Foreign Ministry rejected the ruling, saying it set a “double standard” that unfairly singles out Israel when there are dozens of territorial disputes worldwide. “The European Court of Justice’s ruling is unacceptable both morally and in principle,” said Foreign Minister Israel Katz. “I intend to work with European foreign ministers to prevent the implementation of this gravely flawed policy.” The pro-settler Yesha Council also denounced the court ruling, as did Eugene Kontorovich, a professor of international law and the director of International Law at the Jerusalem-based Kohelet Policy Forum, and Gerald Steinberg, a political science professor and the head of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based watchdog group critical of pro-Palestinian nonprofits.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority and pro-Palestine groups welcomed the ruling, with Saeb Erekat releasing an official statement[2] welcoming the ruling. Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestinian official, welcomed the ruling as a “first step” and encouraged Europe to ban settlement products altogether. “If they do not allow these illegal products to enter European soil, then that would really serve the cause of justice,” she said. Human Rights Watch and Oxfam released similar sentiments.
Experts and diplomats started wondering on the possible effect this might have on EU-Palestinian Authority relations, and EU-Israel relations, with some seeing this as pushback against The United States’ recent declaration that Israeli settlements on the West Bank are “not inconsistent with” international law.
But mere hours later, a different tune was heard, as over a dozen countries abruptly changed their voting pattern at the United Nations in Israel’s favor, opposing an annual resolution that has passed every year since 1977 mandating a special “Division for Palestinian Rights” inside the UN Secretariat traditionally critical of the Jewish state. Of the 13 countries that changed their voting habits, 11 were from the EU – specifically Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovakia. 2 more EU countries (Malta and Cyprus) voted for the resolution, with 14 (among them France, the UK, Spain and Italy) continuing to abstain, as per the status quo until now.
Suddenly, Israel’s Foreign Ministry was congratulating its EU allies and itself, Foreign Minister Israel Katz stating that: “I am pleased that a significant group of countries has decided today to make heard a clear moral stance against discrimination toward Israel at the UN. This is an important step in the long struggle against the bias toward Israel at the UN. What particularly stands out is the change in the position of several European Union states, and I hope that the remaining EU members will adopt this position soon.” Yinam Cohen, the director of the UN Political Affairs Department at the Foreign Ministry, said that the voting “marks a significant first step in the long way to change the bias against Israel in the UN.”
So what is going on here? How is it that in the morning, the EU was anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, and by evening, it was pro-Israel and anti-Palestine?
The key is differentiating between the formal legal proceedings invoked by the EU Court of Justice and the diplomatic efforts of the EU attaches. If one reads the Court’s decision, it seems to be a fair legal decision based on honest interpretation of existing rules and resolutions. It’s a legal Decision based on legal standards, not necessarily affected by recent politics (specifically, it seems to depend on a notice from 2015). As such, even if all the judges were pro-Israel, they could not have come to a different legal decision. What matters, however, is how the ruling will be enforced. The real origin of the produce is not always easy to identify, experts say, and the European Commission said it is up to individual EU countries to ensure that labels are correct and that the origin of settlement produce made known in a way that is “not misleading to the consumer.” Furthermore, EU Commission Spokeswoman Mina Andreeva explicitly stated that Israel has a special trading relationship with the EU, with products originating in its internationally recognized borders benefiting from preferential tariff treatment. “This situation will remain unchanged,” she said. “The EU does not support any form of boycott or sanctions against Israel.”
In contrast, countries in the EU recognizing the implicit bias of the UN against Israel and changing their voting habits in consequence of this is diplomatically significant. Indeed, it may indicate a sea change in terms of Israel’s foreign policy. Germany’s decision in May to fight the anti-Israel bias at the UN, announced by Heiko Maas, and The Czech’s Republic working hard inside the EU forums to generate change regarding voting patterns on Israel at the UN were cited as developments leading to the change by Yinam Cohen. Furthermore, the effect of the recent decisions by the United States, both regarding West Bank Settlements and the Golan Heights cannot be discounted. It may be that the tide is beginning to turn in favor of Israel in international relations.
[1] https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-11/cp190140en.pdf
[2] https://www.nad.ps/en/media-room/press-releases/dr-saeb-erekat-ruling-european-court-justice-labeling-israeli-settlement
The Cat is Out of the Bag
The Gaza Voice, a recorded podcast released on May 21st 2020 contains Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) co-founder Omar Barghouti saying, “If the refugees return to their homes [in Israel] as the BDS movement calls for, if we bring an end to Israel’s apartheid regime and if we end the occupation on lands occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, what will be left of the Zionist regime? That’s the question. Meaning, what will the two states be based on?”[1]
The organization claims to advocate for Israeli political reform and the improvement of Palestinian human rights, not the elimination of the State of Israel. But Barghouti hints here at exactly that. He reveals what could be the underlying intentions of BDS’s three official goals. [2]
We interpret Barghouti’s statement as the following: if BDS successfully achieves the goals it built its platform on, Israel will no longer exist. To answer Barghouti’s rhetorical question, not much will be left of the “Zionist regime”. Answering the three objectives essentially erases what Israel has built over the past 72 years, which includes its normalized relations with the neighboring Arab countries. This contradicts Barghouti’s reference to “two states”, as in having a two state solution. Barghouti understands this, as he reveals in this segment of the twenty-minute podcast.
It should be noted this rhetoric isn’t a shocking revelation. Barghouti has previously stated that Jews cannot have their own state in Palestine. [3] However, what is important about this recent quote is that it reminds the listener of the movement to disrespect the right to self-determination and ultimately delegitimize the state of Israel. The argument that BDS is less impactful toward Israel than it claims to be is irrelevant here; [4] the focus is on the fact that Barghouti continues to preach an unrealistic and undesirable approach when facing a country that has already solidified, built itself up, and is now thriving.
Why unrealistic and undesirable? The organization, with Barghouti as one of its international representatives, goes further than confronting politics and human rights. It questions the existence of a legitimate state and hints at its eventual downfall. It’s dangerous territory to cross into, and it’s something that individual supporters and affiliated groups (NGOs and others) of BDS should understand.
Barghouti continues by saying, “There won’t be any Zionist State like the one we are talking about (present day Israel)… and the Palestinian minority will become a Palestinian majority in the state that today is called Israel.”
Well, what would it mean if Israel did not exist? What would we lose? To name a few basic things: the lack of a Jewish home which was deemed necessary by the United Nations after an extensive history of persecution and incontestable anti-Semitism that is prevalent until this day. It would mean losing the “Start-Up Nation”; the loss of a greenhouse constantly bearing the fruit of an incredible number of innovations and developments that benefit the whole world. It would mean the loss of a home not only for Jews, but for Christians, Druze, and other Arab populations as well.
Thank you Barghouti for revealing that BDS’s end goal is to eliminate Israel.
[1] https://soundcloud.com/user-742784347/bds
[2] https://bdsmovement.net/call
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/world/middleeast/bds-israel-boycott-antisemitic.html
[4] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/01/26/how-much-does-bds-threaten-israels-economy/
Torture of Palestinians - Revealing the Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_rhMEGWy-I
Torture and other inhuman treatment is a daily phenomenon in Palestinian prisons.
Be a voice for the voiceless! Share this video!
LEGAL ACTION IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA
The Jerusalem Institute of Justice has been actively engaged in legal proceedings before the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly focusing on the actions of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. In response to the October 7, 2023, attacks, JIJ has intensified its efforts to hold these groups accountable, arguing that these acts meet the criteria for genocide under international law. The legal documents submitted by JIJ underscore the historical context of the Genocide Convention of 1948 and emphasize the legal definition of genocide as codified in the Rome Statute of the ICC.
In past years, JIJ has filed extensive legal complaints and memos to both national and international bodies, highlighting human rights violations in the region. Their goal is to bring perpetrators, who have enjoyed impunity, to justice. Notably, JIJ has filed lawsuits against Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh for war crimes committed against the Palestinian people in Gaza and against Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for crimes against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank.
In addition to these efforts, JIJ has submitted fifty-two Palestinian testimonies to the ICC in The Hague, revealing severe abuses committed by the Palestinian Authority against their own citizens. These testimonies detail brutal acts, including murder, kidnapping, imprisonment, torture, and rape of Palestinian and Israeli citizens residing in the West Bank. A landmark 1,800-page verdict by Judge Moshe Drori of the Jerusalem District Court has also held the Palestinian Authority accountable for these severe abuses.
Omar Barghouti: A Man with Two Faces
By Nikki Golomb.
In 2005, Omar Barghouti founded the infamous boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) movement; a movement which on its surface appears to promote the rights of Palestinians by pursuing economic, academic, and cultural boycotts of Israel. Beneath the surface, however, it becomes clear that this movement’s true goal is to bring an end to the State of Israel and replace it with a sovereign Palestinian state.
BDS is an extremist, anti-Zionist movement masked as human rights activism. It should thus come as no surprise that Barghouti also aims to portray himself with the same kind of mask. However, if we take a closer look at his actions and beliefs, we see a very different picture. Who, then, is the man behind the movement?
Omar Barghouti was born in Qatar to Palestinian parents, grew up in Egypt, and received a master’s degree from Columbia University before marrying an Arab-Israeli woman and gaining permanent residency status in Israel. He has since received a second master’s degree as well as a PhD from Tel Aviv University in ethics. The irony of this is almost laughable, given that a founding principle of the BDS movement is an academic boycott of Israeli institutions, scholars, and studies. He has enjoyed invaluable benefits from Israeli academic institutions, yet actively promotes boycotting those very institutions. When questioned about this hypocrisy, Barghouti cites personal matters and refuses to comment any further. He also conveniently does not mention that despite a petition among TAU students to remove him from the university, the university allowed him to complete his degrees. It should also be noted that there are 12 universities in the West Bank, one in East Jerusalem, and nine in Gaza. Yet instead of choosing to support any of these Palestinian academic institutions, as would be expected of a Palestinian nationalism activist, he received not one but two degrees from an Israeli university.
BDS, Barghouti claims, is a “non-violent human rights movement that seeks freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people” and is against the oppressive Israeli regime, not against individuals. However, the BDS movement boycotts Israeli individuals based on their nationality, and Barghouti himself refuses to work with Israelis – even those sympathetic to his cause. A true activist puts the movement above his own personal bias. Yet Barghouti goes so far as to say that Palestinians who engage with Israelis are “clinically delusional,” once again undermining his own movement by placing more significance in his personal prejudice than in achieving the goals of his movement.
In addition, Barghouti has publicly expressed disapproval for a two-state solution, instead favoring a single Palestinian state with a Jewish minority presence. He believes that a Jewish state and a Palestinian one are incompatible. Even though the BDS movement claims to not advocate for any particular solution, the nature of the movement and the intentions of its founder suggest otherwise. While BDS appears to support one people’s self-determination, the heart of the movement aims to destroy that of another. Implicit in the movement’s advocacy is Barghouti’s personal goal of the elimination of the Jewish state.
Finally, Barghouti is vocal about making false claims of Israeli apartheid, violence against Palestinian children, colonization, and more. At the same time he denies violence and persecution against Jews in Arab states. Furthermore, the BDS movement portrays only one side of the conflict by refusing to even acknowledge the other perspective. By boycotting Israeli academics and culture, and by refusing to teach that there are two or more sides to every story, the BDS movement promotes a culture which values a narrow-minded outlook over balanced learning. Barghouti himself is hypocritical by spreading false information for the purposes of “education” while standing behind a movement which denies the opportunity to question this information.
Truly progressive and open-minded education does not present only one side of the story. Omar Barghouti and the BDS movement use dangerous tactics to delegitimize and ultimately destroy the Jewish state while hiding behind a mask of human rights advocacy. True activism, however, should not need such a mask. If Barghouti practiced what he preached, BDS would be more compelling. The need for him to completely shut down the other side’s perspective, to hide his hypocritical actions, and to use soft language to cover up an extremist ideology show the flaws, as well as the hypocrisy, in his arguments. Hiding behind a mask of human rights advocacy does not take away from his true intentions. The sad irony in all this is that the boycotting of Israeli businesses in the territories actually hurts the Palestinians themselves more than Israelis because it causes Palestinian unemployment!
In order to effectively promote human rights, we must promote all human rights. Palestinian self-determination cannot come at the expense of that of the Jews. We must find a way to support the rights and dignity of all people. Only then can we hope for a future of peace.
What Palestinians are Afraid to Tell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrF09CvzyLg
We believe that these voices must be heard!
The international community, and particularly the US and EU, have invested unwisely and irresponsibly in the Palestinian Authority. Much of the money has been stolen in broad daylight by their corrupt leaders. These leaders have absolutely no incentive to ever build a Palestinian state or make peace. The conflict with Israel is very lucrative for them personally, and very little funding is actually monitored or preconditioned on progress or reforms. Instead of building a Palestinian democracy, their leaders have built a radicalized police state which systematically abuses human rights in the West Bank and Gaza. To think that this system is funded by Western democracies is so disheartening.
Turning A Blind Eye: Jeremy Corbyn and Hamas
Jeremy Corbyn
In 2015, Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the British Labour Party. This political faction prides itself in representing all sectors of society, specifically minorities and oppressed communities. In line with the party’s ideology, Corbyn has been depicted as a champion of human rights through condemning countries and leaders that violate them and standing up for persecuted peoples. For example, Corbyn criticized British Prime Minister Theresa May on International Human Rights Day for holding talks with delegates from Saudia Arabia and Bahrain, notorious violators of international human rights laws.
But while Mr. Corbyn seems to hold a steadfast position on human rights, his support for certain groups and organizations contradict his purported values. Specifically, their his support for the terrorist organization Hamas has created controversy:
In 2009, Corbyn urged the British government to remove Hamas and its leadership from the British list of condemned terrorist groups. That same year, Corbyn invited representatives from Hamas and Hezbollah to a meeting in the British parliament. Hamas and Hezbollah are both currently classified as terrorist groups by the European Union and the United States of America. During his speech, Corbyn referred to Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends” and “hardworking”.
With the British leaders’ support of the organization, it is important to evaluate Hamas’ poor Human Rights record.
Hamas and Human Rights
The Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas has been categorized as a terrorist organization by the international community and condemned for their multitude of human rights abuses. The following presents specific examples in which the organization violates international law.
Torture
Torture is labeled as a violation of international law in Article 5 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
From December 2016 through March 2017, 38 complaints of torture were reported to the Independent Commission for Human Rights. Reports in Gaza include beatings, suspending detainees to which his shoulders became dislocated, and making prisoners stand in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time.
Prisons
Arbitrary arrest, detention or imprisonment is labeled a violation of international law in Article 9 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Hamas has passed legislation that imprisons any Palestinian for 10 years if they are caught interacting with Israeli NGOs. That means any hospital staff or families of patients interacting with an organization like “Save a Child’s heart,” which provides free cardiac treatment, would be arrested by Hamas.
The security forces also arrest Palestinians whom they claim dress improperly. Some men committed the crime of what the authorities called “pop-star” haircuts, while others had pants that were too low or too tight. These perpetrators were arrested, had their heads shaved, and beaten.
Women’s Rights
Article 55 of the Charter of the United Nations outlines “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.
And even though Articles 17 and 18 of the Hamas Charter define the mother the head of household charged with furthering the education of her children and preparing them to fulfill religious commandments, the organization’s treatment of women is anything but egalitarian:
- Hamas has a special police force to ensure that women dress in a conservative Muslim manor.
- A woman can only file for divorce under certain circumstances, such as if the husband can’t afford to pay her dowry. A woman can attempt to separate from her husband under the claim of mistreatment, but the courts decide what constitutes such abuse and generally do not sway in favor of the wife. Overall, divorce stemming from the complains of a woman is more of an exception than a normative right.
- Adultery is punishable by imprisonment under Hamas. While both men and women are subject to consequences for such, women carry out usually double the prison sentence as compared to men who commit adultery.
Freedom of Thought and Expression
Under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
While Muslims represent 99% of the population in Gaza, there is a very small minority of Christians, constituting about 1% within the territory. Even though the Hamas Charter claims to allow them to live peacefully under Islamic rule, Christians are constantly harassed and threatened by Hamas. For example, shortly after the terrorist group assumed control of Gaza, Hamas burned down and invaded a church and Catholic school.
A Christian bookstore in Gaza was burned down that same year. The owner of the store was also kidnapped and killed by Hamas.
Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all people have the “right to freedom of opinion and expression…without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.
The media in Gaza has been under Hamas’ control since 2007, with journalists only allowed to report on topics approved by the government.
Western journalists reporting on the poor living conditions in Gaza are subject to threats and mistreatment by Hamas. Many recounted that Hamas officers have destroyed or confiscated their materials and cameras due to depicting the true situation within the territory.
Children’s Rights
According to the convention of the Rights of Children and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, recruitment and Use of Children is one of the grave violations against children during armed conflict. The UN defines a child as anyone under the age of 18.
Izzedim Kassam, the military wing of Gaza, implemented a program in 2013 that youth from the ages 15 to 17 in preparation for combat. Some of the lessons in this program include handling grenade launcher and urban warfare.
War Crimes
Human shields are considered a war crime, is described by the Rome Statue as: “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”.
From June 13th to August 26th 2014, during the Israeli-Hamas conflict, the citizens of Gaza were under constant threat from Hamas. The group often uses their own people as human shields by carrying out terrorist activities in civilian areas.. These infrastructures are then targeted and bombed because they are the origin site of rocket fire. And while Israel warns Palestinians to evacuate beforehand, Hamas operatives stop citizens from leaving, intentionally putting their own people in direct danger.
The bodies of those killed in Gaza are then showcased to the media to rally against Israel, but really they in reality victims of the Hamas terrorist agenda.
Conclusion
As outlined above, Hamas has clearly violated a multitude of UN Human Rights and international laws. However, British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has made statements and carried out actions supporting the organization.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the laws and values that all nations and leaders must abide by. The principals set out are supposed to be followed whether at home or abroad by signatory nations. Mr. Corbyn’s contradicting commitment to the Declaration and his support of Hamas, a gross violator of human rights, undermines the legitimacy and importance of Human Rights in Gaza and validates the abuses of the Hamas government. With Great Britain being a leading world power, turning a blind eye to the terror carried out in Gaza can only lead others to follow and further human rights violations to continue into the future.
Abbas Doesn't 'Like' Social Media. The Feeling Is Mutual.
Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas won't be collecting any 'likes' for his recent crackdown against social media and news websites. Those who say the wrong thing, defined vaguely as 'endangering the safety of the state’ or ‘harming national unity' may now receive jail terms up to life in prison.
Without social media, Palestinians would be unable to get their stories out to the world. As one example, Palestine Informer, offers a rare, uncensored glimpse into life as-it-is experienced by ordinary Palestinians. No longer.
Abbas may have believed he could decree a two-for-one winning strategy with this new Cyber-Crime decree.
First, the President criminalized fully-justified criticism of his regime by rivals and, notably, Mohammed Dahlan. Second, he placed intense pressure on Hamas for their recent arrest of a Palestinian television reporter, Fuad Jaradeh. No doubt, Hamas did this to humiliate Abbas. It worked and then some.
The new law has already become a public relations disaster. Ammar Dweik, head of the PA's own Independent Commission for Human Rights, told Ynet news that the law is 'one of the worst' issued in PA history. That is quite an achievement! Even normally loyal or, at least, cowed Palestinian journalists are pushing back. As one wrote, "what is laughable is that this law carried penalties that are tougher than those imposed on thieves and sex offenders." Let’s just say we won’t count this as a ‘like’ for the law.
Oh, and speaking of liking things, anyone who merely promotes content that Abbas deems offensive by 'liking' and sharing it with friends can also be prosecuted and jailed alongside the author. As the PA prosecutor explained, “you cannot accuse the president …. of treason or make fun of him in an image, or something like that.” Surely, that helps clarify things, no?
President Abbas doesn't like social media and the Internet. Everyone gets that. Even so, the law seems unusually bizarre, unless Abbas has decided that his own political survival now hinges on naked suppression of free speech. If so, the President may soon discover that social media's dislike of his crude campaign of censorship sweeps away his 20th century regime, led by otherwise conservative 21st century Palestinians.
Financing the Suffering of the Palestinians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5YPCenFVS0
United Nations employs two groups to help refugees. One group helps refugees settle, while the other keeps them in limbo for generations. Watch this video to see how this contradiction developed and how we can help Palestinians escape decades of poverty in refugee camps.
The "Trump Effect" and Hamas
Donald Trump’s ascent to the United States presidency has had a domino effect on the Arab world, with the aftershocks directly targeting the Palestinian organization Hamas. Under Trump’s foreign policy, the president takes a hardliner approach to global terrorism. Trump hopes to defeat Islamic radical terrorism through partnering with other countries in “aggressive joint operations.” Trump also emphasizes that the United States is always happy when “old enemies become friends” and help aid in their military ventures. Various Arab leaders who have had rocky relations with past presidential administrations see this conciliatory approach as an opportunity and are making political decisions that align with Trump. Saudi Arabia specifically has benefited from the President’s willingness to look towards the future, evidenced by the recent meetings and arms deal between the two countries. The Palestinian Authority (PA), in preparation for their meeting with Trump as well as the resurgence of peace negotiations, cracked down on Hamas in Gaza. By cutting funding for electricity to Gaza, the PA is attempting to prove to Trump that they are committed to fighting against global terrorism. Differently than Obama, Donald Trump is willing to look past human rights concerns in favor of furthering his goal of eradicating global terrorism.
While President Trump has not issued any directive orders against Hamas, his demanding rhetoric has influenced Arab countries to act against the organization to curry favor with the United States. Originally, Hamas viewed the Trump presidency as an opportunity to restore relations with the US. They saw Trump as “having a greater threshold for boldness than [his] predecessors…could be a historic opportunity to pressure Israel.” Well aware of Trump’s policy towards terrorism combined with the rising humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Hamas knew that relations with the administration could make or break their ten-year regime in the territory. In early May, Hamas published a new policy document for the first time since their founding charter in the late 1980s. While Hamas leaders publically argue that this is part of the natural evolution of Hamas, the document appears to be largely moderated from their original position. They state that they are prepared to accept a two state solution with 1967 borders. Compared to their original stance that would not accept anything less than all of Israel, this an apparent large concession. Hamas also provides that their conflict is not with Jews specifically as a people, but with the “Zionist project”. In moderating their policy, Hamas is hoping to open a new era of relations with the United States to retain their power hold in the Gaza strip.
Much to the disappointment of Hamas leadership, President Trump was not swayed by their apparent mainstreaming. With many analysts calling the new document simply window dressing to appeal to Western audiences, the President’s administration barely acknowledged their change in policy. A few weeks later, Trump addressed 55 Arab countries at the Rihyad Summit in Saudi Arabia in which he emphasized the necessity of partnering with other countries to “stamp out extremism” and labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization. He repeated to the delegates present to “drive them out” and “strip them of their access to funds.” By formally connecting Hamas and his goal of eradicating terrorism, Trump laid out to these Arab countries a clear path to contracting better relations with the United States.
Just a few days later, four Arab countries spurred the President’s demands into action. Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia cut diplomatic ties with Qatar over their support for groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran that the United States categorized as terrorist entities. Qatar has invested millions into Gaza’s infrastructure, given substantial financial aid to the territory and also provides refuge for the organization’s exiled leaders. However, days after the beginning of the crisis, Qatar expelled Hamas leaders from Doha due to “unspecified pressure” as well as suspended electricity funding to Gaza. Hamas expressed their outrage at being ostracized by the Trump administration and the subsequent punishing of Qatar, one of their largest backers. A spokesman decried “the statement describing Hamas as a terror group…is a distortion of our image and shows a complete bias to the Zionist occupation.”
With this seemingly waning support from Qatar combined with the Palestinian’s Authority recent crack down on Hamas, the organization needs to secure partnerships with other actors in order to keep control of the Gaza strip and stay in power against the Palestinian Authority. As the humanitarian crisis will only escalate with the loss of funding and electricity, Hamas’ proximate actions will determine the organizations future. Their search is already bringing more contention to the region as they have begun to cozying up with more extreme factions such as Iran and Hezbollah due to regional isolation. The Palestinian Authority is also keeping a close eye on the reconciliation with exiled Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan who keeps close relations with Egyptian leadership.
Hamas’ true colors:
While Hamas seemingly moderated their policy in early March, the organization returned to their original extremist ideology just a few months later. In his first public speech to the people of Gaza in early July, the new political leader Ismail Haniyeh did not attempt to appeal to Western audiences and directly contradicts their new policy document. . Hamas’ hopes for negotiating with the US are extinguished due to regional developments such as the Gulf Crisis that was indirectly affected by Trump’s anti-terror rhetoric. Where Hamas conceded to accepting a two state solution with 1967 borders, the political leader calls for a Palestinian State that “can not give up a grain of soil” and “will foil any attempt to the so-called solution of ‘alternative homeland’.” He also refers to “schemes of Judaization,” detracting from the previous statement that Hamas’ issue is not with Jews but solely Zionism. He slams President Trump for labeling Hamas a terror organization, encouraging the “Zionist enemy” and “blackmail[ing] the Arab and Islamic forces” against the “Palestinian cause.” He also berates the Palestinian Authority for “responding to American dictations.”
Haniyeh is reacting to Trump’s foreign policy by crafting his speech to appeal to potential Arab backers. The Hamas leader hopes to quell some of the regional pressure against the organization by reaffirming their commitment to their “Arab brothers”. Haniyeh argues that Hamas is a resistance movement solely focused on furthering the Palestinian cause, that their issue is not with Arab countries but solely Israeli occupation. His promises are most likely directed at Egypt who has accused Hamas of aiding guerilla rebels within their country. Haniyeh claims that Arab countries will “only see virtue from Hamas and…wish[es] them security, stability and protection.” Haniyeh further paints a number of Arab countries as friends of the Gazan movement even as many of them have had cold ties with Hamas, in hopes of facilitating warmer relations. Haniyeh thanked Egypt, Qatar and Turkey for their historical and hopefully continued support of the Palestinian people in Gaza. He also labeled Saudi Arabia as an ally, even as the country condemns Hamas as a terrorist organization after meeting with Donald Trump. Most importantly, Haniyeh publically confirmed the organization’s ties with other US condemned extremist groups such as Iran. He thanked the country for “developing its military power,” confirming what had only previously been rumored throughout the Middle East.
Hamas looks for allies:
With Donald Trump indirectly influencing Gulf Countries, the Palestinian Authority and even Qatar to break with Hamas, the organization must secure other financial backers for survival. But although Egypt cut ties with Qatar after Donald Trump’s speech, the country and Hamas have been in recent talks. As the two share a border, reopening negotiations is critical for Hamas’ survival and in aiding the humanitarian crisis. Hamas and Egypt have had especially rocky relations since the 2013 overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, of which Hamas is a direct offshoot of. Since the coup, the Egyptian government has accused Hamas of being responsible for a number of attacks, to which the organization refutes. Egypt has further blockaded the Rafah border in an attempt to control smuggling of weapons into Egypt to support the government’s adversaries. In their new policy document, Hamas attempts to distance themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood by negating to mention their ties with the organization, in an effort to restore relations with Egypt.
Current talks between Hamas and Egypt are also being facilitated by the presence of former Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan. Once a high ranking official in the Palestinian Authority leading the fight against Hamas in 2006, Dahlan was exiled and expelled from Fatah in 2011 because he of his perceived threat to Abbas’ power. The former Hamas adversary sees Hamas’ isolation as an opportunity to align with the organization against the PA. Dahlan enjoys close relations with Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and has been acting as an intermediary in meetings between Egypt and Hamas. For his efforts, Dahlan would be allowed to return to Gaza to be in charge of foreign relations while Hamas keeps control over the territory’s security. After what Hamas called “9 days of constructive meetings with Cairo officials,” Egypt agreed to provide some electricity in exchange for a commitment to tighten security on the border to stop smuggling weapons into Egypt to aid government enemies. They also demanded that Hamas stop negotiations with Iran. In an effort to prove their commitment to the negotiations, Hamas began construction in late June on a no-go security zone to control and boost border security.
However, President Abbas is worried by the resurging negotiations between the two forces. The PA president needs Hamas at its weakest to regain control over the Gaza strip and to be seen as the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people in future Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. As Abbas was set to meet with the Egyptian president in Cairo, purchased fuel from Egypt was drastically reduced in Gaza due to interference by the PA. Relations with Egypt may not only be subject to fissure due to external sabotage by Abbas, but also because of Hamas’ recent cozying up to Iran. As part of their negotiations, Egypt warned Gaza leadership not to reconcile with the country. Once the strongest of allies, Hamas and Iran have been at odds since 2012 when the Palestinian organization supported the wrong side in Syria. Subsequently, Iran cut off public relations and military aid. However, as the Trump administration has condemned both Iran and Hamas as terrorist entities, the two are facing regional isolation together and has only brought them closer. Iran is also pleased with the change in Hamas’ political leadership, as they favor Ismail Haniyeh over the former political chief Khaled Meshaal. After reportedly meeting with a delegation in Lebanon, Iran allegedly agreed to resume financial funding to Hamas in the near future. In Lebanon, Hamas began to reconcile with another labeled terror organization, Hezbollah, “under an Iranian umbrella”. The day after Haniyeh’s July speech that publically affirmed the reconciliation, another high ranking Hamas official declared the next day that ties with Iran are “as close and strong as ever.” If Hamas continues to entertain relations with Iran, budding negotiations with Egypt may dissolve even without the meddling of the Palestinian Authority. This would force Hamas to be almost completely dependent on Iran. This resurgence of alliances can only mean bad news for Israel as the two unite to carry out attacks from both Lebanon and Gaza.
While Donald Trump envisions his hardliner approach as the best way to combat terrorism, recent developments in the Middle East such as the Gulf Crisis and actions by the PA have only radicalized Hamas away from their attempt at moderating their policy in March. As the hot summer progresses and the humanitarian crisis only worsens, Hamas will pursue whatever course of action to maintain power in the Gaza Strip, with Iran seeming to be the most probable and reliable ally.