Religion, Nationalism, and Terror

Amira Hass, Two non-states - Haaretz, December 12, 2007

Immediately after the Hamas takeover of the security organs in Gaza in June, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas suspended, using executive orders, the work of the judiciary and law-enforcement systems there. It is possible to see this as a legitimate step against the de facto putsch carried out in the Gaza Strip. However, legal experts and human rights organizations in Gaza warned him that by so doing, he was paving the way for the establishment of a separate court system. How right they were.

Abbas ordered the police to stay home (and get paid for not working), and he forbade the judges to work in cooperation with the police force that Hamas established, having no alternative. Abbas suspended the work of the General Attorney in Gaza, Hamas appointed substitutes, and afterward it set up “The Supreme Justice Council” to run the court system and appoint judges instead of the PA’s “Supreme Judicial Council.” This body was ordered not to accept official documents issued by Hamas ministries and not to charge court fees so that the money would not go to the government coffers in Gaza.

The peak came at the end of November, when the Supreme Justice Council took over the court building in Gaza and informed the 48 judges that thenceforth they were under its authority and not the authority of the Supreme Judicial Council. The seven “Hamas judges” are the only ones working at present, and since there are no restrictions on them, they can at least conduct urgent trials as in cases of murder and robbery. Thus the final impression is that Hamas is more efficient than the PA.

The initial responsibility of the PA in Ramallah is not in doubt. After all, Palestinian judges continued to work with the occupation authorities, so why shouldn’t they also work in a reality of Hamas rule, for the sake of the public? And after all, before the military takeover Hamas won a majority in real democratic elections. That said, the Hamas government has also avoided alternatives such as seeking aid from independent jurists and human rights organizations to persuade Ramallah to put an end to the paralysis of the courts.

Aref Mohammed, Shi’ite factions proclaim truce in Iraq’s Basra, Reuters, December 11, 2007

Rival Shi’ite factions, each with their own militia and political agendas, have vied for control in Basra since 2003.

Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s followers are thought to have the most clout on the streets, while the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council has influence in the security forces and the smaller Fadhila party controls the governorate.

Each has a different view on regional autonomy: Sadr opposes it, the Supreme Council wants Basra as part of a Shi’ite region across the south and Fadhila wants autonomy for Basra itself.

Some of the militia have imposed strict Islamic codes. Women have been killed for so-called “honour crimes” and walls have been painted with threats against those who go out unveiled.

For much of the year, the situation deteriorated. British troops who patrolled Basra came under escalating bombing and mortar attacks until September, when they quit their base in the city centre for the airbase on its outskirts.

Since then, with no more British troops in the city to attack, violence has abated. Many ordinary Basrawis say the city feels safer and government troops appear to be in charge.

“I don’t think there’s any truth to talk of militias ruling Basra. It’s true that sometimes they carry weapons and sometimes spark clashes but the government and its forces are the ones who almost always win,” said university lecturer Wisam Hamid.

Commander Firaiji said most violence was not political.

“We have no militants in the streets, no terrorism in Basra, no crime-infested areas. We still have some organised crime, honour crimes and personal acts of revenge. But politically motivated crimes do not exceed four percent,” he said.