roots
History of disasters
By Saeed Ur Rehman
There are many historical narratives, mutually conflicting and supporting, which led to the creation of the State of Israel and the dislocation of the Palestinians. On one hand, the history of the Jewish Zionist movement, which began informally in the 1880s and became official in 1897, is intimately linked with the history of Western imperialism in the Arab regions. On the other, the persecution of the Jews in Europe compounds the problems faced by the present-day Palestinians because the West seeks to absolve itself by supporting Israel. 

Voices of sanity
It may come as a surprise to many, but there are quite a few non-Muslim Israeli and Palestinian peace activists
By Mustafa Nazir Ahmad
As a nation, we excel in generalisations, such as all Hindus are untrustworthy or the whole world – more precisely, an axis of Jews, Christians, Hindus and Qadianis – is conspiring against the Muslims. It is true that these generalisations are sometimes substantiated by actual events, like the Gujarat train attack or the recent Israeli oppression against innocent Palestinians. However, the flip side of the story is that there are always a few people who do not confirm to the accepted view and even oppose it tooth and nail.

Movements in time
From Yasser Arafat's unified PLO to the undisputed rise of Hamas
By Sarwat Ali
After the creation of Israel, the Palestinians did not have an organisation which they could call their own. There were a few groups but these did not qualify to represent the Palestinian people on the whole. The individual Arab states where the Palestinians had migrated to after 1948 or had settled earlier were representing the Palestinian cause. It was perceived both as a Palestinian cause and an Arab cause so a leader like Abdul Gamal Nasser of Egypt was considered the strongest voice to speak for them.

'Divine' force
A profile of Hezbollah and a look into reasons that make it a formidable force
By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed
Hezbollah - or the Party of God – was founded in Lebanon in 1982 by a group of clerics in response to the invasion of Israeli forces in that country. The forces had invaded to uproot the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leadership, which had established its base of operations there. At that time, both Syria and Iran provided support to Hezbollah and the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in Iran were reportedly sent to Lebanon to fight. The guards also gave military training to the Hezbollah members.

Till the writing of these lines, the death toll in Gaza has crossed 1000 including civilians, women and children. Israel's aerial bombardment that caused damage on this scale could not possibly have been a retaliation of the rocket attacks by Hamas inside Israel. It was surely designed to achieve bigger goals. Apart from the short term objective of electoral success in the upcoming Feb elections for the ruling party in Israel, there is indeed the long term aim of crushing Palestinians resistance, once and for all. Gaza to be made an example for the West bank and East Jerusalem.

But is Israel going to achieve the desired objectives? Is it going to stay safe after inflicting this recent bout of violence on a hapless people? If the past is a guide, it won't.

So, what lies beyond Gaza is the subject of our Special Report today. Most of it is analyses drawn from history because, frankly, there is not much scope or hope about the region's future. Diplomacy, so far, has not generated optimism either. To begin with, there is a US monopoly on diplomacy with no room for Arab and European voices.

The US response is dithering -- between a shamelessly pro-Israel outgoing administration and a muted upcoming presidency. Intelligent timing as far as Israel is concerned, careful enough to not put its most trusted partner in an embarrassing position.

Meanwhile the Palestinians are forced to grapple with the situation on ground as a divided people. The death of Yasser Arafat has left them leaderless, holding on to their scattered patches with very little control and pitched against an enemy bent upon destroying them.

So who among the Palestinians is going to look at the larger picture and think of alternative solutions, when there is no single authority to lead them. The problems are too many and solutions too few.

As the Gaza invasion enters a third week of fighting and the Palestinian death toll crosses over a 1000, one-third of them being women and children, the conflict shows no sign of abating. While the International community is unanimous in condemning the assault and demanding an immediate ceasefire, the United States is firmly behind Israel's war crimes. The US Congress passed a resolution on Friday last, overwhelmingly supporting Israel's 'right' to 'defend' itself. Although, for the first time, the American people are taking to the streets against Israel, the government and the mainstream media are still busy deliberately concealing, what the UN has called, a humanitarian catastrophe.

Why is it that despite such blatant aggression, the US always tends to support Israel unconditionally? What explains the special relationship between Israel and the US besides both being settler colonial states founded upon the expulsion of the native population?

Noam Chomsky has attributed this relationship to the Imperial interests of the US in the Middle East for which Israel acts as a watchdog. While certainly a plausible explanation, it cannot by itself explain the enormous influence that Israel exerts on the minds of the American people, the overwhelming majority of whom have simply believed Israel to be a 'natural' ally that has to be defended, irrespective of the costs. In explaining such a situation, one would have to examine the enormous influence the Israel 'lobby' plays in the socio-political life of the American people, carefully cultivating opinion through a manipulation of Jewish history and suffering and turning it into a justification for the crimes of Israel. In this article, I want to shed some light on the instruments used to transform public opinion as well as public policy in favour of Israel.

Norman G. Finkelstein, the seminal historian of the Arab-Israel conflict, recalls how an increasing body of work literary, historical and artistic began to emerge on the Holocaust in the 60s and 70s. Prior to that, the historical work on the Holocaust comprised a handful of books written by Holocaust survivors. These were highly personalised, emotional accounts written precisely to highlight the traumas that the Jewish people suffered at the hands of the Nazis. The intention was simply to highlight the sufferings and no pretense was made to garner any sympathy for political ends. The writings became popular among Holocaust survivors, who could share their grief with others in their private spaces. Yet, what began happening in the 60s and 70s was the reverse; the handful of personalised accounts began to be replaced by piles upon piles of historical accounts, films and literature dedicated to bringing the personal suffering of the Jewish people into the public domain and transforming it into spectacle.

All of a sudden, everyone cared about the Holocaust and the Jews. The Nazi Holocaust became, in Finkelstein's words, THE HOLOCAUST, an epic event to be played out over and over again in the minds of the American people, with scant regard to the historical context. The aim was not some newfound love for the Jewish people; the US after all, had played a highly ambiguous role with respect to Hitler, continuing to trade with Nazi Germany up until 1940. The aim was strictly political: To present the Jewish people as eternal victims so that their current crimes can be ignored. To this end, hundreds of books have been written about the Holocaust, careers have been made or broken with respect to the position one has over the Holocaust. The result is stunning; according to Finkelstein, "most college professors can testify that compared to the Civil War many more undergraduates are able to place the Nazi holocaust in the right century and generally cite the number killed. In fact, the Nazi holocaust is just about the only historical reference that resonates in a university classroom today. Polls show that many more Americans can identify Holocaust than Pearl Harbor or the atomic bombing of Japan."

Perhaps, the biggest achievement is to virtually obliterate the difference between 'Israel', a genocidal state based on a racist Ideology called Zionism and Judaism, so that all the sympathy for the 'Jews' is appropriated by Israel, which is itself an occupier of foreign lands with the worst human rights record in the post war period.

The manipulation of public opinion is backed up by powerful lobbying groups, chief among them being the AIPAC which has, according to one estimate, over 100,000 members and 150 full-time operatives in Washington actively pressuring the US Congress, the White House and all administrative agencies whose policies may relate to the interests of the State of Israel. "However", as James Petras writes, "Israeli political power extends far beyond its non-governmental agencies. Over two score legislators in the Congress and over a dozen senators are committed Zionists who automatically back Israel's policies and push for US funding and armaments for its military machine. Top officials in key administrative positions, in Treasury, Commerce and the National Security Council, senior functionaries in the Pentagon and top advisers on Middle East affairs are also life-long, fanatically committed Zionists, who consistently and unreservedly back the policies of the State of Israel."

Billions of dollars in US tax-payers money is siphoned off by AIPAC, to assist in the construction of illegal settlements along the West Bank and Gaza, itself acts of aggression and war against the Palestinian people.

These instruments of manipulation, however, come up against certain logical limits. As the Holocaust recedes further into memory, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Israel to garner sympathy on its past alone, especially since the world is becoming aware of the extent of its crimes. The protests in America in the wake of the Gaza assault have been the largest in American history against Israel. Many have voiced their concern for the lack of criticism against Israel in the mainstream media and the Congressional resolution has been the object of great public outcry. Many academics have refused to be silenced by the assault of Israeli propaganda in their academy and have begun a struggle to isolate pro-Israel academics in US universities. Let us hope that the American public can become part of the burgeoning International movement against Israeli war crimes that can put a stop to the activities of this Colonial state.

The two-state

The Israel-Palestine conflict has seen it all. Wars, diplomacy, moral arguments, pragmatic solutions, rights-based activism and yet what both sides end up with is more wars, more refugees, illegal settlements and apartheid walls. The two sides have moved ahead in the last sixty years and changed positions but they haven't come near the ultimate solution which remains peace.

A sense of proportional response has been the biggest casualty in each war they have fought. So, hundreds of rocket attacks into Israel that killed one Israeli soldier in six months are retaliated with aerial bombings that have killed more than 1000 innocent civilians in less than three weeks in Gaza.

Analysts have been quick to hint the February elections in Israel as the short term reason for the Israelis to lose this sense of proportion yet again. They have also pointed out that stopping rocket attacks from Gaza was not Israel's real aim because that could have been attained by means other than this full scale war that involved so much of human and political cost. In the words of Rami G Khouri "Israel is not just bombing Hamas facilities; it is trying to bomb into oblivion the idea that any Palestinian man, woman or child can stand up and demand the end of their national dismemberment and exile."

In the aftermath of this recent attack, those who have been suggesting that the two state solution is dead seem correct in their assessment, after all. Beginning in 1917 when the idea of a Jewish state was first floated as Balfour Declaration to the actual setting up of Israel in 1948 followed by sixty years of unmitigated conflict, almost determining the direction of world politics being the single most important dispute, time has perhaps come to question the logic of a two state solution in favour of one state -- not just as a moral or ethical solution but a pragmatic one.

It has been quite some time that saner voices sought alternatives like bi-nationalism. The fate of Oslo Accord at the hands of Israelis only acted as a catalyst. Palestinian intellectual Edward Said wrote in 1999: " after 50 years of Israeli history, classic Zionism has provided no solution to the Palestinian presence. I therefore see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way with equal rights for all citizens." Even Yasser Arafat, who signed Oslo Accord, was quoted as having said in a 2004 interview that appeared in The Guardian: "Time is running out for a two-state solution."

Whether the time is ripe for a bi-national, secular, democratic state in Palestine or not is perhaps not as clear as the sense that the two-state solution is a dead cause. But the option must be put on the table. Because the two peoples are geographically and historically "thrust together" and three decades of experimenting with the two-state idea has only led to more violence.

American academic Virginia Tilley in her path-breaking work "The One State Solution" argued vociferously for binationalism in 2005 as did many others. In a subsequent article in New left Review, she hinted at the level of support this idea was gaining among diplomats, European states, United Nations and even among Jewish professionals in Israel and abroad, apart from the Palestinian intellectuals of course.

Interestingly, Tilley has refuted the claims made in various opinion polls which show that a one-state solution is not favoured either by the Palestinians or the Jews. She suggests that these surveys should be read with care because the public discussion on the subject is suppressed in the Occupied Territories. This solution "is (rightly) considered subversive of the Palestinian Authority's diplomacy and even its existence… Palestinians in the Territories are living in an environment still dominated by the urgent collective norm -- common in any revolutionary movement -- to maintain political unity behind the leadership." Same is true of Israeli Jews who, she says, face serious social sanctions against even discussing the idea since the government "retains a monopoly over popular knowledge." On an optimistic note, she thinks such "popular views may change dramatically as recognition of the death of the two-state solution becomes more widespread."

Tilley and others who argue for a one state solution often cite the South African example. In the article mentioned above, she writes: "Jewish fears of annihihilation at the hands of native (Arab) hordes strongly recall Afrikaner fears and prejudices about Africans." They too thought the blacks were incapable of democracy like the Zionists who think the Arabs are only capable of dictatorship. Hence, the need to benefit from this comparison, she suggests. Of course, many scholars have made a comparative study of ANC and PLO but not exactly reaching the same conclusion as Tilley. Mona Younis (2000) stressed the role of labour unions in negotiating the end of apartheid and Eqbal Ahmad in an essay "PLO and ANS -- Painful Contrasts" in 1994 praised the primacy of politics in ANC's struggle and was critical of PLO's armed struggle approach. He, along with Edward Said and others, made his criticism known to Arafat too. Tilley acknowledges PLO's policies and factionalism leading to the collective weakness of Palestinian workers damaged its negotiating power but concludes its failure owed itself to many other problems, including the role of US patronage and subsidies to Israel.

The death of the two-state solution is therefore foretold. It was in fact a non-starter. Because why else would the Israelis, even at the time of signing the peace accords with Palestinians, continue making illegal settlements in Palestinian territories. An expansion of this scale did not aim at any two-state solution for sure. The settlers were not put there to be withdrawn later. So it is time a secular democratic state idea was put on the table because that seems like the only possible solution – moral and practical.

There are many historical narratives, mutually conflicting and supporting, which led to the creation of the State of Israel and the dislocation of the Palestinians. On one hand, the history of the Jewish Zionist movement, which began informally in the 1880s and became official in 1897, is intimately linked with the history of Western imperialism in the Arab regions. On the other, the persecution of the Jews in Europe compounds the problems faced by the present-day Palestinians because the West seeks to absolve itself by supporting Israel. The Zionist movement's goal, when it began, was to establish a homeland for the Jewish diaspoa in Jerusalem. At the time when the Zionist movement started, the total number of Jews living in Palestine was 24000 (in 1882). In the Jewish belief system, the creation of Israel would be the realisation of the homeland promised to the Jewish people by God. However, not all Jews were in favour of human struggle to realise the promise of God. Some Jews thought it was a blasphemy to try to create what God promised to do Himself, especially because the promised homeland was expected to manifest itself after the arrival of the Messiah. Secular Jews, or nominally Jewish people, supportedthe idea of a homeland for the Jews not because of any metaphysical idealism but because their persecution in Eastern Europe. Following the Zionist dream and political pogroms in Europe, between 30000 to 40000 Jews migrated to Palestine from 1881 to 1903. A large number of Russian Jews also migrated to Palestine (Russian Jews now make the largest ethnic group in Israel because of the upheavals caused by revolutionary movements in Russia.

Soon afterwards, Britain and France were engaged in World War I and, after the disintegration of the Ottomon Empire, divided the Arab lands between themselves. In 1915, the Husayn-McMahon correspondence took place which promised to the Arabs that a large territory would be created to bring all Arabic-speaking people together. This promise to the Arabs was extended in exchange of their support against the Ottoman Empire. At the same time, the British were promising their support to the Zionists because they needed Jewish money for fighting the World War I. After the war, the League of Nations awarded the Palestinian territory to Britain which established the British Mandate for Palestine. The idea behind the award was that the British would administer and develop the region. The British authorities implemented some development plans but continued to connive with the Zionist s especially by their promise to follow the Balfour Declaration, drafted in 1916 by a Zionist group of leaders. The Balfour Declaration sought to divide the Arab territory under the British Mandate into two separate entities to establish one Jewish and the other Arab state. This was in conflict with the earlier Husayn-McMohan Correspondence of 1915 in which the British had promised a consolidated Arab territoy in exchange for revolting against the Ottoman Empire. The British denied the existence of the Husayn-McMohan Correspondence for many years until George Antonius, a Palestinian bureaucrat, published the ten letters in his book The Arab Awakening (1938). This correspondence revealed the promises the British had made to the Arab leaders and exposed the duplicitous political manouvers of the British.

The ascension of Hitler in Germany in 1933 also did not help the cause of Palestine because a great wave of Jewish refugees changed the demographic balance of the Palestinian territory. Though Hitler supported the mass exodus of Jews from Germany to Palestine, he became wary of their demand of an independent state. Because of this stance of Hitler, many Zionists, till today, link any critique of Israeli aggression to Hitler's anti-Semitism and fascism. Moreover the Western guilt over the Holocaust has helped the Zionist project a great deal because it galvanises Western support against the Palestinians' struggle for sovereignty. During Hitler's Reich, the large number of Jewish refugees arriving in Palestine produced a great sense of dis-enfranchisement among the Arab Palestinians, especially because the Jewish refugees were purchasing land at a great scale. The acquisition of land was at such a speed that it produced boycotts and civil unrest among the Palestinians in which 10 % of the adult male Arab inhbitants (between 1936-39) were "killed, injured or detained." In 1937, the Peel Commission Report suggested the territory should be divided among the Jewish and Arab inhabitants because the unrest cannot be contained. The two-state solution was welcomed by Zionists because it promised them a separate homeland. At that moment, the Arab population was 70% of the total and they occupied 90% of the land. The British plans to divide the territory was not welcomed by Arab leaders. Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia rejected the recommendations of the Peel Commission. They decided to boycott Jewish and British goods if the recommendations are followed. The British withdrew the recommendations after the Woodhead Partition Commission's report. After many negotiations, protests, and resolutions between the Arab leaders of the region and the British authorities, the Arab demand for placing a limit on the Jewish immigration into Palestine was accepted in 1939. By this time, the British were also making plans for withdrawing from the region and relinquishing the Mandate to the League of Nations.

In 1945, the United Nations replaced the League of Nations and in 1947, through UN Resolution 181, a vote determined that the Palestinian territory should be divided between the Jewish and the Arab populations. The Jews at that time comprised 33 % of the total number people and owned only 7 % of the land. The United Nations awarded them 55 % of the Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians erupted in a violent protest. The Jews began their plans to exterminate the Arabs living in the territory awarded to them. On 14 May 1948, the British Mandate for Palestine expired and the State of Israel came into being. Within a year, over 700000 Palestinians became refugees in the neighboring countries because of the surprise attacks on their settlements. The Arabs remember the protracted war of 1948-1949 as Naqba, meaning a "catastrophe." The Jews call it the War of Independence. This shows how metaphysics and land can produce violently opposite visions and create largescale human disasters.

As a nation, we excel in generalisations, such as all Hindus are untrustworthy or the whole world – more precisely, an axis of Jews, Christians, Hindus and Qadianis – is conspiring against the Muslims. It is true that these generalisations are sometimes substantiated by actual events, like the Gujarat train attack or the recent Israeli oppression against innocent Palestinians. However, the flip side of the story is that there are always a few people who do not confirm to the accepted view and even oppose it tooth and nail.

This scribe knows from personal experience that many Hindus resigned from their posts after the Gujarat massacre of Muslims. Moreover, the cases of many Muslims were fought free of cost by Hindu lawyers, to help them get their legal rights as well as claims to properties set ablaze in the tragedy. Similarly, Israel, despite being one of the most oppressive nations in the world, especially for Arabs and Muslims as a whole, does have a reasonable population that does not want war with Arabs. Though the number of such people is still too low to be taken seriously, the fact of the matter is that such efforts needs to be encouraged. Unfortunately, this is not happening because of the media, for which 'war is news, peace is not'.

Coming to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict that has already claimed over a thousand mostly innocent lives, it is surprising to note that there are many peace groups in Israel that advocate peace with Palestine in particular and other Arab countries in general. Some of the leading names in this regard are that of Uri Avnery and the late Edward Said, who once wrote: "Remember the solidarity shown to Palestine here and everywhere... and remember also that there is a cause to which many people have committed themselves, difficulties and terrible obstacles notwithstanding. Why? Because it is a just cause, a noble ideal, a moral quest for equality and human rights."

Uri Avnery, 85, is a , and former (Israeli Parliament) member. He made (emigrated to the region that would become the State of Israel) in 1933 and joined the paramilitary group, the , at the age of 15. Avnery left the group four years later after becoming disenchanted with its tactics, stating in a 2003 interview that "I didn't like the methods of terror applied by the Irgun at the time", noting that he did not back killing people in retaliation for similar acts by the Arabs. In the 1980s and 1990s, Avnery turned to activism and founded the peace movement in 1993.

Similarly, Edward Saïd – a and – was an outspoken advocate for rights. A University Professor of English and Comparative Literature at , Said was referred to as 's "most powerful political voice" when he was alive. He was born in in . His father was a US citizen with Palestinian origins, while his mother was also of Protestant descent. Therefore, Said referred to himself as a " wrapped in a ".

In 1999, Said jointly founded the with the Argentine-Israeli conductor and close friend . The orchestra is made up of musicians from Israel, Palestine and the surrounding Arab countries. As a pro-Palestinian activist, he campaigned for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. From 1977 to 1991, Said was an independent member of the (PNC) that tended to stay out of factional struggles. He supported the and voted for the establishment of the in in 1988. In 1991, he quit the PNC in protest over the process leading up to the signing of the , feeling that the terms of the accord were unacceptable. Ultimately, Said came to prefer and to support a state that would afford Palestinians a home with equal human rights in place of the 'Jewish' state of modern-day Israel.

In August 2003, in an article published online in , Said summarises his position on the contemporary rights of Palestinians vis-à-vis the historical experience of the Jewish people: "I have spent a great deal of my life during the past 35 years advocating the rights of the Palestinian people to national self-determination, but I have always tried to do that with full attention paid to the reality of the Jewish people and what they suffered by way of persecution and genocide. The paramount thing is that the struggle for equality in Palestine/Israel should be directed toward a humane goal, that is, co-existence, and not further suppression and denial.

After the creation of Israel, the Palestinians did not have an organisation which they could call their own. There were a few groups but these did not qualify to represent the Palestinian people on the whole. The individual Arab states where the Palestinians had migrated to after 1948 or had settled earlier were representing the Palestinian cause. It was perceived both as a Palestinian cause and an Arab cause so a leader like Abdul Gamal Nasser of Egypt was considered the strongest voice to speak for them.

Nasser as a leader had the credentials of standing up to the colonial powers which he had established by nationalising the Suez Canal. He also co-founded the non-aligned movement with Nehru and Tito and by choosing to stay closer to the Soviet Union and distancing himself from the Americans which was staunchly pro Israel, he became the champion of the national liberation movements in various parts of the world. This was sufficient to make him into a leader of international stature.

But all this changed dramatically with the Arab Israel war of 1967. The Arabs were defeated with large chunks of Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territories occupied by Israel. Nasser lost his sheen and was never able to recover from that defeat. His stature and authority started to decline appreciably and he was a much diminished figure when he died in 1970.

The Palestinian organisations, seeing the fall of Nasser, were filled with a new resolve. After 1967, the various organisations became more active, launched an armed struggle against the Israelis, especially in the occupied territories, and shot to fame with certain high profile hijacking. The international spotlight gave them the impetus to become more organised, and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was formed in 1964 by merging various groups like Al Fatah, Al Saiqa and Popular Front for the liberation of Palestine, with its headquarters in Jordan, became a more purposeful organisation after the 1967 war.

When PLO asserted its identity, the Arab cause and the Palestinian cause became incongruous. It was driven out of Jordan, set up its headquarters in Lebanon and continued to build its militant faction, though within a stronger political umbrella. Yasser Arafat, the leader of Al Fatah, was the most prominent leader and it was in 1974, during the Arab Summit held in Rabat and the Islamic Summit held in Lahore that the PLO was legitimised as the sole representative of the Palestinian people with Yasser Arafat declared its undisputed leader.

After the 1973 war, the countries decided to deal with Israel on individual basis. Egypt recognised Israel and, in turn, large parts of Gaza were returned to Egyptian control. Jordan, too, struck separate deals with Israel which left the PLO seeing its future different from that of the Arab states involved directly in the conflict with Israel. This weakened the organisation and it was also driven out of Lebanon and sought its new headquarters in Tunis.

After much pressure and many an assassination attempt, including even an air crash, Yasser Arafat survived and, from a very weak position, signed the agreement in 1993 with Rabin which more or less recognised the right of Israel as a state to exist. This was the beginning of the famous two-state solution to the endemic problem of the Middle East.

Seeing that the Palestinians were not gaining much and rather losing, other militant groups started to re-ignite the militant struggle against Israel. This gave rise to the first Intifada in 1987 from which emerged another organisation in 1988, an offshoot of the Palestinian wing of Muslim Brotherhood, that drew its strength from religion, rather than being only a national liberation movement in the classical sense which bases its struggle on the inalienable rights of people to form a state on which they live.

The movement, known by its acronym, Hamas worked as a humanitarian organisation, especially in the fields of education and health. Arafat and his PLO struggled to set up some kind of a political setup which was much less than a government and no more than an authority the Palestine National Authority. Seeing some of their basic demands not being met or rather being ignored only fuelled infighting among the Palestinians.

Yasser Arafat juggled with diminished authority and limited experience to govern. The perception, too, changed to being more of a figure that represented the establishment rather than a radical leader who leads a nation to freedom and his government also came in for a barrage of criticism for misrule and corruption. Above all, it was the incumbency factor that pushed it into a corner.

Hamas, in the meantime, had become strong and, especially in the Gaza strip, had more say than the Palestinian National Authority which was being run from Ramallah, its headquarters on the West Bank. When elections were held in 2006, it showed a clear divide, for the people in Gaza voted for Hamas while those in the West Bank voted for the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

When no satisfactory workable solution was arrived at, in sharing power, the two territorial units had virtually two governments. While Hamas ruled in Gaza, Palestine National Authority ruled in the West Bank, declaring an informal end to the unity of the Palestinian people which had been arrived at so painstakingly by making PLO the sole representative of the people of Palestine.

Yasser Arafat was by far the most popular leader of the Palestinians. The large turnout on his funeral and the outpouring of public grief was a clear indicator of how close he was to his people. But the intransigence of Israel, the policies of various Arab states of putting their national interests above those of the Palestinians, and the totally changed global political environment deprived Arafat of the fruits of his struggle. He was able to show much less than what he had promised.

Hezbollah - or the Party of God – was founded in Lebanon in 1982 by a group of clerics in response to the invasion of Israeli forces in that country. The forces had invaded to uproot the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leadership, which had established its base of operations there. At that time, both Syria and Iran provided support to Hezbollah and the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in Iran were reportedly sent to Lebanon to fight. The guards also gave military training to the Hezbollah members.

Within a short span of time the party became the region's leading radical movement, determined to drive Israeli troops from Lebanon. Since then it has remained a powerful force with its established political wing holding seats in the Lebanese Parliament and its military wing gaining popular support as a security force in southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah has expressed its resolve over the years to embrace the Palestinian cause and its readiness to open another front against Israel in support of the uprising. Hezbollah has also used the names Revolutionary Justice Organisation and Organisation for the Oppressed on Earth, Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Resistance and has been inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution. Initially, it was on the agenda of the party to transform Lebanese state into an Iranian-style Islamic state, but later on the idea was abandoned. Currently, the party has become a well-structured political organisation and has significant presence in the Parliament.

It is believed that Hezbollah has been training Hamas militia and supporting it in its long-standing dispute with Israel. This support was evident from the recent speeches made by the Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah who drew parallels between Hezbollah and Hamas and asked the Arabs to stand by the latter.

The resistance Hezbollah offered in the Lebanon war of 2006 proved that it was the only force that had given Israeli forces a tough time. Despite an offensive spread over 34 days, Israel could not get its two kidnapped soldiers released from Hezbollah and had to withdraw and come to the negotiation table. In combats with other opponents, Israel would have a complete sway within in no time.

During the 2006 war, Hezbollah performed remarkably well and surprised everyone with its strength, even the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). It could down an Israeli warship during one of Nasrallah's speeches and striking at Haifa, in the heart of Israel, for the first time since 1948.

Hezbollah and its factions are known internationally for the series of kidnappings, hijackings and bombings allegedly carried out by them against mainly US interests during the 1980s, both in Lebanon and overseas. The most infamous such attack is probably the October 1983 suicide bombing of a US Marine barrack in Beirut which killed 241 American and 56 French soldiers.

No doubt Hezbollah serves as an inspiration to Palestinian factions fighting to liberate occupied territory. The party has cooperated with and supported Palestinian groups, including Fatah/Tanzim, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

In recent years, Hezbollah has won considerable backing within Lebanon thanks to its extensive social services programme, especially popular with the Shia community. It provides social welfare services in South Lebanon, including organising hospitals and schools besides maintaining a charity fund for the families of suicide bombers. Unlike the US that calls it a terrorist organisation, the Lebanese government has declared it a national resistance movement.

Several rockets were also fired on Thursday (Jan 15, 2009) into Israel from the Lebanese territory, where Hezbollah is known to operate, but a UN investigation is yet to find out whether the militant group is trying to open a new front in the Gaza conflict.

It is established beyond doubt that Hamas is in no way comparable to Hezbollah in terms of effectiveness and formidability against Israeli forces. Sami Moubayed, editor-in-chief of Syria-based Forward Magazine writes that Hezbollah could offer resistance as the terrain in South Lebanon is suitable for guerilla warfare, giving Hezbollah a grand advantage over the IDF in 2006. "The Lebanese warriors knew the caves, the mountains and slopes by heart and used them to make life miserable for Israel.

"Gaza is not like that, with its 360 square kilometres of flatland and a population of 1.2 million Palestinians. Israel controls Gaza's airspace and waters, which is not the case with South Lebanon. Gaza is dislocated from the West Bank, and has no neighbouring support - unlike the case with Hezbollah, which relied on Syria for help in 2006."

Secondly, Hezbollah projects itself as a resistance group that can deliver, psychologically through the media, and militarily in ground combat. When its al-Manar TV was hit by Israel, the station stopped broadcasting for no more than a few minutes and was immediately back on air, beaming images of dead Israeli soldiers and victorious warriors from Hezbollah, along with talk shows of Hezbollah's might, with subtitles in Hebrew. Whereas, Sami says, Hamas has none of Hezbollah's media machine to promote itself.

"Hamas' borders are with Egypt which not only is unsupportive but is a burden for Hamas because of its refusal to open the Rafah Crossing and its close ties to both Israel and the US. If a country like Syria were bordering Gaza - rather than Egypt - the results of Hamas' performance would be very different.

Last but not the least, Hamas lacks leadership of the cadre enjoyed by Hezbollah. The world very well knows how Nasrallah managed to lift the spirits of ordinary Lebanese - especially from within his constituency - throughout the 33-day war on Lebanon, when he spoke to them from his secret hiding place, almost on a daily basis.