anti-terror laws

7 Jul 2008

Guilt by Association

By Mustafa Qadri

An Interpal food package

If Israel can work with Hamas, why can't Australian charities?

The recent investigation of Muslim Aid Australia for its connections to Interpal, an organisation associated with Hamas, exposes the political limitations of Australia's anti-terrorism financing regime. It also raises important questions about the efficacy of listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

Interpal is a British humanitarian organisation but it is not banned in that country. In August 2003 the United States banned Interpal arguing it and affiliated charities were conduits for financing Hamas, the Islamic political group that controls the Gaza Strip. On that basis Australia followed suit and banned Interpal three months later.

Very little information is publicly available to corroborate the US claims. According to the US Treasury Department, Interpal "is the fundraising coordinator of HAMAS," and, "includes supervising activities of charities, developing new charities in targeted areas, instructing how funds should be transferred from one charity to another, and even determining public relations policy."

Interpal's real crime may be that it works with an organisation strongly opposed by the US Government. Making humanitarian organisations guilty by association with Hamas will not harm the political party - whether or not that is desirable. It will only serve to further cripple one of the poorest populations in the Middle East.

If Muslim Aid Australia is banned because of its association with Interpal it will set a dangerous precedent for other Australian charities working in conflict zones like Gaza. Humanitarian agencies often have to work through organisations like Hamas in order to assist the poorest and most vulnerable people. Since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007, humanitarian assistance within the small coastal territory has been entirely dependant on coordination with Hamas authorities.

Aid agencies have always had to coordinate their activities in Gaza with the Israeli army and that remains the case. The dirty little open secret is that Israeli army commanders routinely coordinate day-to-day affairs, such as the entry and exit of fuel convoys, with their Hamas counterparts.

The Gaza Strip is presently experiencing a serious humanitarian crisis due to an Israeli blockade that has been in force since the Hamas takeover. Around 80 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. Access to energy and water has been heavily reduced while food prices have soared.

"I am unable to meet my family's needs," a man in Gaza told me two weeks ago. "Whenever I go to the market, I cannot find what I want, and if I find it, I cannot offer the prices."

A ceasefire negotiated between Hamas and Israel two weeks ago may alleviate the situation to an extent. Israel is now permitting some conveys of food and fuel into Gaza. But after such a long period of economic strangulation and political instability Gaza will remain impoverished for some time. Now more than ever there is a role for humanitarian agencies to play in Gaza. That will inevitably involve working with Hamas.

All of this highlights the limitations of listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Hamas has its roots in social welfare programs. Even now Hamas runs extensive welfare programs in the Occupied Territories such as free medical assistance and education programs. Many Hamas programs have ground to a halt in the West Bank, however, because its members face arrest or death from the Israeli Army.

Only two months ago former US President Jimmy Carter called for the international community to normalise relations with Hamas. The declaration coincided with Carter meeting Hamas leaders in Syria, a move that helped precipitate the current ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Even hardened enemies like Israel and Hamas have the capacity to negotiate and, in the process, legitimate each other's existence.

These events send a clear signal. If Israel can work with Hamas, why can't Australian charities?

Discuss this article

To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register

denise 10/07/08 12:13PM

You make some very strong points for normalising relations with Hamas, especially since the ceasefire and opening up of borders.
And if the world charity organisations did support the people of Gaza more through Hamas, they would then depend less on Israel for all of their needs and so become more independent. Or at least dependent on groups more sympathetic to their cause that promise to help them grow and support their communities not just in Gaza, but in all of the Palestinian Territories.
As long as this is not to be seen as a way to put more revenue into a Jihad against Israel, at the expense of their own economy and wellbeing.

philannetta 10/07/08 3:05PM

There are not only good reasons for normalising relations with Hamas, there is no good reason not to. Hamas has offered long-term ceasefires many times in the past, but these have never been taken up by Israel. It won democratic elections and featured non-Hamas officials in its cabinet. Despite its charter (and before you quote that section its charter, read what Jewish supremacists have to say about Gentiles), it has also offered to abide by the long-standing Arab League / Saudi proposal.

One obstacle to this is the whole ‘recognition of Israel’ demand, which is bunk; as has been pointed out many times, recognition is given by one state to another. Legally, Palestine is not a state and cannot give official recognition to Israel. It is morally questionable as well, as the demand has lately been rephrased to recognise not just Israel’s existence, but its right to exist, which implies that all indigenous people should recognise the rights of colonialists to their land. More practically, the demand is impossible as Israel refuses to give a final definition of its borders. Which Israel would Hamas recognise?

The other demand, that Hamas renounce violence, is illegal as well; Palestinian territory is occupied, and the body of international law states that a) gaining land by conquest is illegal, and b) it is the right of occupied peoples to engage in armed resistance.

Really, those with a grasp of history should see right through the whole Hamas vs Israel / West dynamic. Hamas was nurtured by Israel as a counterweight to the PLO; now that Hamas is in some ways more powerful than the PLO / Fatah, Israel and the West want to support Fatah, so they send arms and trainers, and try to force Hamas to jump through hoops. People on both sides who want to live their lives in peace lose again.

At its heart, the Israel-Palestine conflict is very simple: most people on both sides want peace and are prepared to talk to their ‘enemy’. Who gains what land and who can go where have been debated endlessly, but a proposal exists which has broad support. The reasons this has not been taken up are geopolitical, nothing else: Israel wants to be the regional hegemon and the US wants it to be the regional hegemon. Until extremists are removed from power in both countries (and we can add the Arab dictatorships to that while we’re at it), there will be no peace in the Middle East. philannetta.blogspot.com

denise 14/07/08 3:40PM

If only it was that simple philanetta. However, the UN has resolutions and certainly the most important issue is that borders must be finalised to ensure both the Israelis and the Palestinians have their human rights restored with every inch of land that is theirs under their control and vice versa.
Because once the Palestinian Territories are no longer under Israel’s control, not Israel’s responsibility anymore, then the other Arab nations and the wider international community can help restore the Palestinians into a people and a nation they can be proud of.
Instead of allowing them to become obssessed with destroying Israel to the detriment of their own people’s lives.