Don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating violence as such. But when I heard on the news and read in the newspapers about Jack Straw, Condoleeza Rice, Kofi Annan and others lecturing Hamas on the incompatibility of democracy and violence it nearly made me choke over my breakfast. The hypocrisy of it all. And some of our own leader writers joined in the general chorus. It takes two to tango. I did not see, in any of these calls to Hamas, reciprocal calls on Israel to stop its continuing daily violence against Palestinians.

As if democracy and violence have never existed together. As if democracy and violence do not go simply and always hand in hand. Which present day democratic state does not employ violence and terror? The US which claims to be a democratic country has used violent and terroristic means to impose its will over smaller countries. It has overthrown governments, which it does not like, by force throughout its history and has illegally invaded and terrorised many countries. The list is very long. Remember the Philippines, Cuba, Iran in the 50s, Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq just to name a few important examples and has plans to continue to do so in the future. And what about Abu Ghraib, Baghram and Guantanamo? Are these not the living symbols of US “democracy” and violence? Stokely Carmichael, remember him of 60s fame, once said that violence is as American as apple pie. And to paraphrase Mark Antony “It is a democratic country”.

The champion of democracy in the Middle East, Israel, has occupied Palestine and practices terror on a large scale against Palestinians. Only a couple of years ago it flattened Jenin and continues to carry out what it calls “targeted killings” which are simply acts of murder. The great European democracies, England and France, maintained their colonies through violence and terror; so I wonder what Jack Straw was talking about. India, the world’s largest democracy, practices terror and violence in Kashmir.

I have listed above the illegal uses of violence by democracies. There are also situations where violence is considered legal. The obvious example is the Hobbseian monopoly of violence which a democratic state exercises internally with respect to its own citizens. As the modern nation state has developed its citizens have accepted this monopoly as a necessary evil for the smooth functioning of society, so that society does not descend into anarchy. On the other hand a democratically elected government has the right to use violence against external foes which threaten it and this is recognised by international law. In these two senses, democracy and violence, go hand in hand “legitimately”. Thirdly armed resistance and violent struggle by an occupied people against the occupier is recognised as legitimate by international law. Many of the developing countries would not have freed themselves from the colonial yoke if they had not taken up arms against the occupier, leading very often to really bloody wars of national liberation in which many innocent people died.

The Palestinian people have just given a demonstration in democracy to the rest of the world and particularly the Arab world. The elections were fair and free. Palestine has the freest and most vibrant press in the Arab world and it has an independent judiciary and now they have demonstrated political maturity and courage in rejecting leaders who were unable to provide jobs and security, who were corrupt and whose bankrupt policies did not lead to liberation from Israeli occupation. The Palestinians were not deterred by threats from the US, Europe or Israel.

Once in government Hamas will have the duty to defend Palestinians from Israeli attacks and thus cannot and must not eschew armed resistance. Hamas has quite rightly rejected all calls to give up its right to armed resistance to Israeli occupation. The reasons that the Palestinians voted overwhelmingly for Hamas are not only that they were fed up with Al Fatah’s corruption and that Hamas provided social welfare, health and education and was known to be honest. The overwhelming reason that Hamas won was that it rejected the false promises of Oslo and that it continued its armed resistance. The Palestinians see Hamas as an organisation that works and struggles for the liberation of the Palestinian people and that is why it won the election.

Hamas will surprise us I think. It recognises the reality of Israel as is evident from its election manifesto which did not contain the slogan of the elimination of Israel. Once it forms the government it will have to negotiate with Israel as Israel will have to negotiate with who ever the Palestinians elect; just like the Palestinians had to negotiate with a convicted war criminal and mass murderer, Sharon, who was elected by the Israelis. These are democratic choices of the adversary which one has to live with however unpleasant it must have been for Palestinian negotiators to sit down across the table from Sharon, the butcher of Sabra and Chatila. Hamas has the capability to promote peace with Israel because it has the confidence and support of the majority of Palestinians. This is a good opportunity for peace with honour in Palestine. Because of its support base it will be able to take some hard and unpleasant decisions. But Hamas will make clear to Israel that it will not accept a Palestine which is cut up into so many Bantustans, will not accept the existence of Jewish colonies in Palestine and will resist Israeli violence and terror through armed resistance. Hamas is quite right when it says that Palesstinian militias must be transformed into an army to defend Palestine.

Thus instead of asking Hamas to lay down its arms it would be well if Jack Straw and his ilk force Israel to dismantle its colonies in the occupied West Bank, pull out its troops from Palestinian territory, stop its practice of murders, dismantle the wall and come to terms with the reality of a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as a shared capital city. Only then can one reasonably ask the Palestinians to lay down their arms.

---