The relationship between the PLO and Hamas

he relationship between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas has been that of an ever-evolving struggle to decide who will be the leading force in the struggle for Palestinian independence. Using their very different ideologies, that of the secular nationalist and the Islamists nationalist respectively, these two groups have done much to decide the path that the Palestinian people have taken in their struggle to rid themselves of Israeli occupation. The relationship between the two groups has been complex and has evolved much during the 18 years of Hamas’s existence. The future of these two groups and the Palestinian people will be decided by how well these groups coexist with each other and also how effectively they are able to balance ideology in respect to the current political situation.

Even though Hamas is only 18 years old itself, its roots are with the Muslim Brotherhood Organization, which first came to Palestine in the 1930’s. The “goal of Brotherhood was to transform society to approximate as closely as possible that was establish by the Prophet Muhammed and his companions(Abu-Amar, 6)” This was a viewed as prerequisite to finding a solution to the conflict with Israel. The ideology of the Brotherhood largely comes from Hasan Al-Banna during the 1930s. He was living under British rule in Egypt and after the secular government in Egypt had repeatedly been undermined and weakened by its colonial master, he sought a way to return the historically powerful Egypt back into prominenceⁱ. He helped define an Islamic nationalist goal, a future that made “no distinction between religion and government, with the Quran and the sunna serving as the basis for all life( Abu-Amr 6)”.

The Brother adhered to the policy of not actively challenging the occupation authorities. The Brotherhood focused its energies on social and educational programs, and this in turn made a portion of the Palestinian population sympathetic to its cause. Because they were dealing with the everyday realities of the occupation, this limited the movement’s appeal to the majority of Palestinians. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO was the nationalist force that opposed the occupation and was recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people.

This non-confrontational policy lead the Israeli authorities to cast a blind eye on the Brotherhood’s programs and allowed it to gain a strong institutional footing in Palestinian territory. The Israelis, preferred this organization to the then confrontational PLO, and encouraged it and funded it.ⁱⁱThe Brotherhood was also encouraged throughout the Middle East by the United States, as a way to counterbalance secular forces that may have favored closer ties to the Communist blocⁱⁱⁱ.

A major turning point came in 1973 with the formation of the Islamic Center by Shayak Ahmad Yasin who rose as a leader in the Brotherhood (and eventually Hamas). He consolidated power among the Brotherhood and greatly strengthened the Brotherhood’s influence in the occupied territories. By the late 1970’s disillusionment within the secular resistance movement was growing. The Islamic revolution in Iran also inspired Islamists. The Brotherhood’s influence increased because it was not actively resisting the Israelis, so it was able to strengthen its organizational base, increasing control of waqf (Muslim religious endowments) to 10% of the total land of the Gaza Strip. The number of Mosques under the Brotherhoods control also increased and was used for gaining followers (Abu-Amr, 8).

Remaining constant throughout this period was that the main source of dissatisfaction with the Brotherhood came from its failure to resist the occupation. The events of the first Intifada made this policy impossible to continue. The reason the peace process was started, the reason Israel decided to reverse its previous position of not negotiating with the PLO, was the high price that it was paying for its brutal repression of the largely nonviolent Palestinian Intifada in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza. As the world’s press noted, the Palestinians were no longer going to sit by idly as their land continued to be occupied and their people brutalized by the Israeli army. There was a widespread uprising after a number of Palestinian civilians were killed by an Israeli truck(Abu-Amr, 10). The Brotherhood had no choice but to embrace this uprising.

To do this, the leadership of the Brotherhood created a branch, Hamas, that would be responsible for resisting the occupation. By December 14, 1987, the leaders of the Brotherhood called on the Palestinians to arm up and resist the Israelis. In order to guide its followers, the leaders of Hamas created a charter outlining the movement’s goals and principles. The charter was in large created to gain popular support for Hamas.

The PLO had already legitimized itself as the sole representatives of the Palestinian people. Therefore, Hamas did not seek to overthrow, or replace the PLO. As article 27 of the charter states, “the Palestine Liberation Organization is closest of the close to…” Hamas. At the same time, Hamas made its differences with the PLO ideology of secular nationalism very clear. As article 27 continues: “Secularist ideology is in total contradiction to religious ideologies”, Hamas ”… cannot exchange the current and future of Islam in Palestine to adopt the secular ideology because the Islamic nature of the Palestinian issue is part and parcel of our… (ideology and way of life)”.

One of Hamas’s central tenants is the indivisibility of Palestine, as stated in Article 11 “Palestine is an Islamic Waqf upon all Muslim generations till the day of resurrection. It is not the right to give up nor any part of it.” So for Hamas, “giving up any part of Palestine is like giving up part of its religion(Hamas Charter, Article 13)” and “Palestine is the heart of the earth”( Hamas Charter, Article 34). Hamas as well as the PLO charter had also originally embraced armed resistance as the way to free Palestine, as Article 9 of the PLO charter states states: “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.”

By 1988, “Arafat and the PLO agreed in 1988 to accept the “two state” solution based on “land for peace”’(Hanania). This went against the PLO’s own charter, which was adopted by the Palestine National Council in July 1968. The PLO charter originally resembled Hamas’s, the major difference being that it embraced a secular versus Islamist ideology. For example, Article 2 concurs with Hamas’s charter in that it states “Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.” Instead of relying on religious reasons, the PLO charter cites nationalistic reasons. Article 2-5 stress the PLO’s embrace of Arab nationalistic ideology. Both the PLO’s and Hamas’s charters attacked Zionism and its seizing of Palestinian lands.

By accepting the two-state solution, the PLO had thus amended their overall objectives, as stated in their charter of refusing to coexist with Israel. This showed that this secular movement was able to change in the face of an opportunity to at least begin to start achieving its overall objectives. This angered some Palestinians, especially the Islamists. Hamas’s charter in many ways was a direct response to this action by the PLO and the growing Intifada. By doing this, they moved into the role of the nationalist force opposing the occupation that the PLO had held up into this point. Because Palestinian society has traditionally been secular, this position, and along with Hamas’s continued charity and social programs would be the main source for the organization to gain support.

The creation of Hamas from the Brotherhood showed the ideological transformation, of which the followers of the Brotherhood movement were capable of. It was different from the Brotherhood in its far greater emphasis on the Palestine problem. By embracing armed resistance, the Hamas took a 180-degree turn from the path to which the Brotherhood had adhered to for decades. This was only the first major change in Hamas, and it foreshadowed that it could repeat this in the future.

The 1993 Oslo Accords were heralded as a breakthrough in the peace process by the press. The reality of the situation was very different. All of the central issues for the Palestinians, including sovereignty, statehood, final borders, and the question of settlements, Jerusalem, refugees and water were deferred. Israel got recognition or acceptance from most of the Arab world and developed commercial, political or indirect relations with major Arab countries. In light of the so-called breakthrough, the Palestinians were allowed to be pushed into the back of the minds of their supporters. All that the Palestinians actually got from Oslo was limited control of 17.2 % of the West Bank and Gaza, divided into 75 islands, all isolated by the Israeli-controlled territory and checkpoints^iv.

Self-rule was instituted by PLO leader Yasser Arafat who acquiesced to Israel by accepting Oslo. Following the standard colonial pattern, in many ways he became a collaborator with the Israelis against his own people. In order to maintain his usefulness to the Israelis, he had to impose a harsh regime on those who he ruled. This rule only helped to increase the cycle of violence. Arafat’s administration was widely recognized to be corrupt. Not only did this serve to de-legitimize it in the eyes of the some Palestinians, but attracted followers to Hamas, which throughout its history maintained an impeccable image.

Eminent Middle East reporter Robert Fisk observed “the beauty of the trap into which Arafat had been driven into with Messianic confidence. If he refused to confront Islamic forces, it [proved] he couldn’t be trusted with more land- as he was entitled under Oslo. If he fought into a civil war- proved he presided over anarchy, [this gave the Israelis a] good reason why he should be given no more territory(Fisk, 419)”. And the longer it took for the Palestinians to see the fruits of Oslo, the more discontent they would become.

Hamas originally offered to join PLO on terms it knew to be unacceptable (Kristianasen, 20). But the fact that it offered to join the PLO showed that was flexible, and might be more so in the future. In December of 1992, the then still inexperienced Hamas killed five Israeli soldiers then kidnapped and killed a border guard. This resulted in the expulsion of 400 Islamists to Marj- al_Zuhur in Lebanon.On the slopes of these mountains was created the Islamic University, which would be the education ground of many future leaders of Hamas (Fisk, 430-431).

This outraged Palestinians and led to further attacks on Israelis. International pressure eventually allowed the deportees to return. During this period, Hamas rethought much of its strategy. Furthermore, Jordan granted Hamas leader Musa Ab Marzuq residency. His rising power reflected in “the movement’s shift from the early, fiercely Islamic rhetoric of its 1988 charter and its early communiqués to a more modern, secular style. “(Kristianasen, 21) The movement was reinforced by a new generation of professionals, and a new strategy. It then proceeded to address the outside world in its own language, which was an attempt to enhance Hamas’s image.

As early as November 1993, the now jailed Shayak Yasin wrote an open letter- calling for possible cease-fire with Israel for ten or twenty years- if it would withdraw from occupied territories. This has been echoed since then. Far from being a radical demand, it repeats UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, ‘which emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war,” [and] demanded the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”’(Fisk, 383).

Yasin also suggested that Hamas begin “challenging the legislative institution from within, this lead to Hamas taking part in elections. At the same time, called on Palestinians to oppose Oslo ‘by all civilized means’ (Kristianasen, 23)”.The majority of the Palestinians inside the occupied territories, initially supported the Peace Process and Oslo, and the soon to be born Palestinian Authority (Kristianasen,21). Hamas knew this and stepped back its rhetoric in 1994. It changed it policy and only attacked when Israel directly provoked it. The occupation itself was no longer a justification for an attack in itself; this was another major strategic shift for Hamas.

Also in November 1993, a Jewish settler killed a Palestinian civilian. Graffiti in Hebron declared that “The Islamic Movement of Hamas will kill the man who killed Takal Bakari”. Talking to Fisk, a Palestinian named Ibrahin declared that “Hamas men [will] strike down the seller of our country”, [in a reference to Yasser Arafat]. At the same time Israel opened a dialogue with Hamas –General Doron Almog of the Israeli learned that Hamas preferred “the continuation of the Israeli occupation over Arafat’s control under autonomy”. Even Hamas didn’t know why Israel would undermine the PLO leader,: “The truth was, of course, elements in the Israeli army that wanted to destroy Oslo(Fisk, 408-409)”. This was apparent to Fisk as he was reflecting back twelve years later, but it was not evident to many at the time.

The next major turning point came when Baruch Goldstein massacred Palestinian worshippers in the Mosque at Abraham’s tomb in Hebron on February 25, 1994. The Islamists responded to the Hebron Massacre by bombing a bus in Afula. This resulted in the mass deportation and imprisonment of Hamas leaders. This in turn led to a new militant leadership, relying heavily on Muslim Brotherhood apparatus in Jordan and Egypt.

In November 1994 the PA shot Islamist protesters in Gaza. The Israeli army shot down Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank(Fisk, 419-420). As conflict degenerated to suicide bombings, Israeli air attacks, extrajudicial executions, house destruction and massive [Israeli] land grabbing- Palestinians were blamed by both Israel and American for failure to control violence and accept the deal for 64% of the 22%left to negotiate over. At this point in time “it is vital to establish that Israel reneged on every major accord and understanding that was signed in coming years(Fisk, 419)

By 1995 there was a virtual dictatorship in Gaza. Arafat instituted secret midnights for those that disagreed with his rule, where Islamists were given 25-year sentences. The PA had ten competing intelligence services. There were mass arrests of political opponents, and harsh measures against the press. The PA also liased with Israeli security forces, who instructed them on various types of torture(422, Fisk).

Arafat’s harsh rule served to alienate much of the Palestinian people. According to Amnesty International: “killings of Palestinians by Israeli security services or settlers have led to suicide bombings and the deaths of Israeli civilians. These have led to waves of arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention, torture and unfair trials[by Palestinian Security forces]. The Palestinian population have been the main victims of such violations…the Occupied territories have become a land of barriers, mostly erected by Israeli security services, between town and town and village and village.”^v

By the end of 1995, with much of its 1994 militant leadership imprisoned, a new younger generation attuned with secular nationalism and ties with Fatah shifted Hamas policy and took a more pragmatic political stance. Another transformation was achieved. Hamas evolved again, as its leaders wanted to preserve Hamas’s gains and turn it into a political party that could participate in the PA. Beyond this, Hamas’s attempts of Islamicization of Palestinian society was also watered down, and demands on women wearing Hijab and Koranic moral conduct were reduced or rescinded. (Kristianasen, 25-26) The PA went along with this in order to increase its popularity and to make Hamas agree to a cease-fire that was necessary for the peace process to continue with Israel. “The outcome was an undeclared moratorium on armed attacks…[that lasted] from September 1995 to February 1996 (Kristianasen, 27). ”

The end of the ceasefire was caused by the assassination of two major Islamists figures by Israel. The result was four suicide bombings in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem which in turn resulted in an unprecedented crackdown on Islamists by the PA. The attacks by the Islamists were in part caused by a lack of strong leadership within Hamas.

Finally by 1997, Hamas’s leaders were able to build a consensus within the party and agreed to three important points, which included a cessation of hostilities with the PA, limiting the armed struggle to retaliatory actions against soldiers and settlers only, and an effort to acquire assistance and support from Muslim and Arab countries, in an effort to gain for international support. This was a landmark for Hamas and marked yet another large change in its policies.

By 1998, Yasin was finally released from Israeli imprisonment and again put forth another decree: promising to end violence if a Palestinian state was established and Israel abided by UN Security Resolution 242(Kristianasen, 31). This of course, was not to happen.

Between 1991 and 2000, the number of Israeli settlers doubled from 200,000 to 400,000. The people living under occupation were subjected to increasingly harsh treatment, as they watched the peace process stutter and fail. By the year 2000, things were getting desperate. After last ditch efforts at Camp David and Taba, talks were suspended without any significant deals as new governments took power in the United States and Israel. After seven years and virtually no real progress, all that was needed was the slightest spark to the powder keg of their denied aspirations for the situation to explode.^vi This came in the form of Ariel Sharon and one thousand Israeli troops visiting the Temple Mount, sparking the second Intifiada.

Since the start of the second Intifada, the Palestinians have been subjected to extreme collective punishment at the hand of the Israeli army. These responses took three main forms: illegal killings, tortures, and house demolitions^vii. According to the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the occupied Territories, B’Tselem, 3,386 Palestinians have been killed since September 2000, 1,008 of them were classified as combatants, and 676 of them were children. During the same period, 992 Israelis were killed, of those, 309 were security forces and 118 were children. Amnesty International writes “Israeli security services have routinely tortured Palestinian political suspects on the occupied territories”^viii. B’Tselem counts that 4170 Palestinian homes have also been destroyed since the beginning of the second Intifada.^ix

After Mahmud Abbas won presidency of the PA after Yasser Arafat’s death, he decided to democratize the PLO and change Fatah into a modern democratic movement. This was in order to remove Arafat loyalists and others who were opposed to his popular policies of cease-fire, reform and negotiations with Israel. This would be a way to revitalize the PLO which had been losing support and credibility. Hamas agreed to a year long cease-fire and to take part in the municipal elections in December of 2005. As a large result of the continued seizure of Palestinian lands and further revelations of PA corruption, Hamas won major gains(Usher,6 ).

This was followed by the January 2006 elections where Hamas, benefiting from deep divisions within Fatah, won a majority of the seats in the PA while only getting about a third of the Palestinian vote(Usher,7). Although foreshadowed by the December elections, this was still a shock to all parties involved. Abbas reacted by calling on the members of the major Fatah bodies to resign. He then attempted to consolidate power in the office of the presidency in a move designed to decrease the power of the democratically elected PA with the new Hamas majority. This move was protested by Hamas but encouraged by Israel and the United States who were shocked and outraged at Hamas’s victory.

Palestinians have a deeply secular past and the community has strong and vocal minorities of Jews and especially Christians who would be automatically opposed to a Islamic society. Even the majority of Palestinian Muslims, as shown in the analysis of recent polling results, did not vote for the Islamic party. The fact that Hamas won a majority of the seats was more a symptom of the weakness PLO and the failure for the peace process to improve conditions for the Palestinians.

The future of Hamas and the PLO will largely be decided by how they handle the increasing pressure being levied on it by Israel, the United States and the rest of the international community. In the past they have shown a willingness to compromise and suspend its acts of violence if Israel reciprocates, and this must continue. The difference is that now Hamas and the PLO’s role within the PA have been switched.

Hamas must understand that in the current power relationship between it and Israel, Hamas has absolutely no possible way of carrying out its overall objective of destroying the state of Israel. Furthermore, as has been made abundantly clear, the US and Israel are doing everything at their disposal to discredit and undermine the Hamas government. This has included secretly funding the PA before the last elections^x, to blocking all international aid, blocking the PA’s from receiving the tax revenue from it is entitled to and criminalizing contact with Hamas members. This is predicted to result in a humanitarian crises as the PA will be unable to pay its employees.

In the face of such odds, it has yet to be determined if Palestinians will rally around their elected leaders. The West’s attempt to undermine Hamas has been clear to all, and help to reinforce the idea that it is only for democracy on its terms^xi. To its credit, Hamas has maintained a unilateral cease-fire for the past year and refrained from responding to Israeli attacks. At the same time, it justified an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing against Israel as self-defense. This only added fuel to its Israeli and US detractors. At the same time, Hamas cannot simply renounce self-defense as its core supporters will see this as Hamas following the same path as did the PLO did.

Throughout Hamas’s existence, but especially since 1993, Hamas has gone through various evolutions and changes. Since its inception it has repeatedly shown that its ideology, as described in its charter and by its Muslim Brotherhood roots, can and will be set aside when political gain for the party and the Palestinian people seems possible. Fatah must also examine its ideological goals and examine if moving away from the democratic process just because it lost in elections is in the best interests of the future of the Palestinians. The future of both movements will depend on how they balance ideological goals with the immediate goals of survival for the Palestinian people. And furthermore, if despite their ideological differences, the two main Palestinian political movements they can show a united front to the outside world as this will likely benefit both parties and the Palestinian people.

Works Quoted:

i Rashid Khalidi,"The United States and Palestine" in Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East(Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.

ii Ray Hanania, “Sharon’s Terror Child: How the Likud Bloc Mid-wifed the Birth of Hamas” Counterpunch.org, January 18/19, 2003.

iii Peter Bergen, “The Wrong War: Backdraft: How the war in Iraq has fueled Al Qaeda and ignited its dream of global jihad.” Mother Jones Magazine. July/August 2004 Issue

iv ibid i

v Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 333.

vi Ibid, i

vii

viii http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20060104.asp

ix

x Scott Wilson and Glenn Kessle “U.S. Funds Enter Fray In Palestinian Elections”. Washington Post Foreign Service. January 22, 2006http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012101431.html

xi Jamil Hilal, “Hamas’s rise as chartered in the Polls, 1994-2005. Journal Of Palestine Studies vol. XXXV, No 3. (Spring 2006), pp1-14.

Works Quoted:

1. Krstianasen, Wendy “Challenge And Counterchallenge: Hamas’s Response to Oslo”. Journal Of Palestine Studies XXVIII, no 3 (Spring 1999).

2. Fisk, Robert “The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East”(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005).

3. Usher, Graham “The Democratic Resistance: Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian Elections”. Journal Of Palestine Studies XXXV, No 3(Spring 2006).

4. Abu-Amr, Ziad “Hamas: A Historical and Political Background” Journal Of Palestine Studies vol. XXII, no. 4(Summer 1993).

5. Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement(Hamas) Of Palestine. Journal Of Palestine Studies vol. XXII, no. 4 (Summer 1993).

6. PLO Charter. Palestinian National Authority- The Official Web Site. Adopted July 1-17, 1968. http://www.pna.gov.ps/Government/gov/plo_Charter.asp

Oliver Stone’s Salvador

Oliver Stone’s Salvador is a movie about journalist Richard Boyle’s experiences covering El Salvador during 1980. The country was in the midst of a civil war and the scene of much violence and bloodshed. The government was controlled by right-wing paramilitaries whose brutality had driven many on the left to become disillusioned with the political system. An insurgency was formed in the hills to oppose the government. The movie Salvador accurately depicts relations between the United States and El Salvador by presenting the narrative created by the governments of El Salvador and the United States and contrasting this with a factual portrayal of the events that transpired.

The main backdrop and justification for US involvement in Latin America was the Cold War. The policymakers in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans, decided Latin America was being infiltrated by Communist subversives from the U.S.S.R. Moscow then directed local Communist bastions of Nicaragua and Cuba to infiltrate neighboring countries and overthrow their governments; leaving communism in their place. After securing a foothold in Latin America, the US argued, the communists’ ultimate goal was to destroy America.¹

This thinking is manifested in Salvador, through the characters Colonel Bentley Hyde and Ambassador Tom Kelly. They continually stated that the insurgents were communists and part of the greater communist threat. Furthermore, both state these communists were being armed and supplied by Nicaragua and Cuba.² This justified US support for the brutal ring wing Salvadorian military; a counter measure not only against the threat of a spread of Communism, but even worse in the eyes of the United States: a viable and successful alternative to Communism.

US officials continually stated the Salvadorian army was not responsible for the majority of the violence which was carried out. It was well known that the violence included the torture and massacres of numerous unarmed civilians. The ambassador even acknowledged that right-wing factions in El Salvador were led by “pathological killer”, Major Max. He justifies support of Max’s army because there is “god knows what on the left, and [the] gutless in the middle”.

The movie also showed the majority of the violence was carried out by the US-backed Salvadorian military and their associated paramilitaries. For example, a major event in the movie was the assassination of the Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero. The movie depicted the assassination as planned out by members of military. The stated reason for the killing was Archbishop Romero rallying support against those in power. The killing was carried out in cold blood while the Archbishop was giving mass. Shortly before he was assassinated, Romero gave a plea asking for troops to stop killings and other violence against civilians. As was typical throughout the movie, the violence was immediately blamed on the leftist insurgents and this was used to justify further crackdowns against them.

The movie portrays the assassination of the Archbishop as part of an overall campaign carried out by the military against anyone in opposition. Journalists as well human rights activists and church groups were targeted. One of the most disturbing scenes of the movie was the rape and murder of four Catholic nuns leaving El Salvador for Nicaragua. Interesting to note is that one of the last things that the nuns say is that there is no political persecution in Nicaragua, which is one of the reasons it is their destination.

Again the paramilitaries are shown being guilty of the crime and again the military justified the killings by saying that the nuns were first victims, then part of the insurgency. US officials continued to claim that insurgents were receiving outside assistance. The military claims that external interference is to blame for the rebel victories and this is used to pressure Kelly to reinstate US support. This comes in time for the Salvadorian army to deliver a devastating blow against the insurgents.

The violence in the movie was not exclusively credited to the military and paramilitary forces. During one scene, Boyle and Cassady witness the execution of several captured military prisoners by insurgents. Boyle is outraged that the insurgents have become no better than the military they are fighting, but the viewer cannot help but feel that the atrocities of the military drove the insurgents to carry out these actions in revenge.

In addition to the accurate portrayal of the governments’ narratives, Salvador shows the events that actually transpired in El Salvador. In many respects these contradict the claims of the governments, revealing them to be erroneous and misleading. Many of these portrayals in fact mirror how these events are covered in our readings.

Throughout the movie Boyle, Cassady and others plead to US officials to stop arming and training the Salvadorian military. For the most part these pleas go on deaf ears and the overall US policy towards the Salvadorian government goes largely unchanged throughout the movie. The lone exception was the brief suspension of military aid carried out by Ambassador Kelly.

A primary example of a false government claim would be the insurgents are communists, the main justification for US involvement. Boyle challenges Colonel Hyde on this point without success, ultimately declaring that Hyde cannot tell the difference between someone who is left-wing and communist because as far as Hyde is concerned there is no difference. As Peter H. Smith points out in Talons of the Eagle, during the Cold War, “Washington’s perceptions of ‘communist dangers’ and tendencies rested upon exceedingly broad, loose, and often irresponsible criteria(188)” and “Though the uprising[in El Salvador] had fully indigenous roots, Washington saw the conflict as a sign of alien communist agitation( 183)”.

Another example would be that the claim insurgents were receiving aid from external sources. This continued even after Boyle and fellow journalist John Cassady provided evidence disproving this. The filmmaker made it clear that US government involvement was already decided on by government officials and therefore its actins did not always have to be justified on hard facts. As The Massacre at El Mozote makes clear, most of the weapons used by the insurgents were either bought or captured from Salvadorian military and the flow of weapons from neighboring countries had little effect on the conflict.

Further contradicting government claims, The Massacre at El Mozote emphasizes that it was common knowledge who held responsibility for the majority of violence carried out in El Salvador. It wasn’t a secret from those carrying out the crimes. The victims knew, as they were the ones being raped, tortured and murdered. The US military knew because they were responsible for the training and arming of the death squads and because of first hand accounts the embassy was receiving from the likes of Boyle and others. For example, the killers of Archbishop Romero were members of death squads that trained at the CIA’s School of the Americas, as was reported by the UN Truth Commission report. The government chose to ignore the evidence that could damage its mission in El Salvador.

Overall, Stone’s film gives the viewer a very accurate portrayal of the events in 1980 El Salvador. By contrasting the official government line with the narrative presented by dissidents such as Boyle, Salvador is able to create an excellent overall picture of US-Salvadorian relations. The main point of the film is to expose the government’s willingness to mislead the American people. Equally important is the author’s attempt at exposing the reason for this.

A very important point that is only touched upon in the movie is the situation that was simultaneously unfolding in Nicaragua. In that country, the Sandinistas had carried out an effective coup against the US-backed Somoza regime. Instead of choosing Communism or embracing Western ideology, the Sandinista lead government had decided to take their country on an independent path. The United States’ government worst fears came into fruition as this new path lead the country lead to immediate economic growth and progress in the social sector. The elites in Washington didn’t want El Salvador to follow the Sandinista model for success, which would be inspiration for additional countries to join this movement. This would effectively take these countries out of the US’s sphere of influence, weakening the United States globally.

Throughout the movie, different characters keep making allusions to Vietnam and how it was lost because the US public lost the will to fight that war, that it couldn’t handle the military losses. I believe that Stone and Boyle do not buy this. They believe that the US military was forced to withdraw because public backlash against the massacres of innocent Vietnamese civilians became too strong.

This public backlash manifest in congressional action which took the forms of the

1975 Church Committee Report, the 1975 Harkin Amendment, and the 1978 Human Rights and Security Assistance Act. These forced the government stop its overt bombing of its enemies and instead forced it to resort to clandestine funding of paramilitaries and other secret activities.

The government had to lie about El Salvador because it knew it had another Vietnam on its hands, another nationalist insurgency determined to overthrow an oppressive, US-backed authoritarian regime. Despite a few instances, the governments’ policies remained unchallenged in the press as the media failed to inform the US public and hold the government responsible. Even when the media did report on the events, they gave credit to government numbers while they downplayed the statistics unfavorable to the government as these claims were authored by “blatantly biased journalists and overly credulous human-right zealots(90, Danner).”

Furthermore, reports by the FLMN and other resistance groups were correctly labeled as propaganda. As Danner points out, regardless of this fact the numbers these groups brought forth were based on truth, and should have been given some weight in the press(88, Danner). The end result was that the Salvadorian government’s human right record got certified by Congress and military aid was able to continue to flow freely. For this reason Salvador is a condemnation of the press’s failure as much as it is of the government’s actions.

1 Holden and Zolov, Saving the New World from Communism, pg. 289

2 Holden and Zolov, The Fear of Communism in Central America, pg 293

Reaction to Patrick Henry’s “On slavery”

In “On Slavery” Henry addresses the issue of slavery and racism as it is manifested in contemporary America. He seems to feel that there is something profoundly wrong with the treatment of slaves at the hands of whites. He also has his own justifications for continuing the practice of slavery and suggestions to maybe ‘improve’ it.

Henry’s piece starts out with a strong denunciation of a “…practice so totally repugnant to the first impressions of right and wrong(211)”. He continues with the proclamation that slavery is unsuitable in the current times, as it is one of the ‘most enlightened ages’.

Especially resonating is Henry’s point that in a country where ‘the rights of humanity are defined and understood in a country..(211)’ such as they are in America, whose people are strongly moral and Christian, it would seem as if there would be no place in such a society for slavery.

After making these powerful points, Henry asks the rhetorical question if the reader would believe that he himself is a master of slaves? Well it seems a bit odd, but Henry continues that “I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living here without them(211)”. He claims he cannot justify slavery. Simultaneously though, he does offer the reader the justification he is living with. It is no easy task to acknowledge that a practice, of choice, it must be specified, that resonates as being so wrong and misplaced in a society like his, doesn’t merit one changing one’s personal practices.

Henry is unable to change his practices as he has become to use to using slave labor to make his life easier. One can imagine how much it would have pained Henry to have his food cooked for him, his farmland harvested, his tea prepared just right everyday by those who he fully understood he had no right to hold the power of life and death over. This must have been no small burden for a man living in such civilized of times.

Henry concludes on an interesting point- he believes that the time will come when slavery will be abolished. He doesn’t see that as being something in the foreseeable future. Until that time, he argues, the least we can do is to tell the next generation of slave holders – the current slave holder’s own children in many cases- about its ills, in the hope that they are courageous and strong enough to fight its many temptations. Furthermore, he believes that slave owners could probably treat their slaves a little better, considering that they are being completely and utterly oppressed- and like he says- no justification exists for the continuance of this practice. One can only hope that Patrick Henry could sleep well at night after undressing the hypocrisy of his age in such a brutally honest fashion.

The History of the Maghreb

The three countries of the Maghreb: Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco all posses similarities and differences in their histories. In their pre-colonial history they had all been converted first to Christianity and then to Islam, originally eastern oriented, and lacked the features of a modern ‘state’. They also had small, elite urban populations, while the large, poorer, rural populations followed the Sufi tradition. Tunisia and Morocco became important centers for Islamic scholarship. Although the Ottoman Turks had conquered Tunisia and Algeria, Morocco resisted and remained independent.

For Algeria and Tunisia, Ottoman rule came in the form of the Mamluks. Ruling through local elites, they swore allegiance to Istanbul and their military consisted of Janissary elite troops combined with local militias. They would defend the land from foreign threats as well as collect tribute and taxes from rural areas. In Algeria, the Deys had power since 1689 and in Tunisia the Beys since 1705. This control was largely limited to the urban centers and the penetration of the countryside was limited. Tribal society had the most influence there.

Morocco developed very differently. Having been able to fend off Ottoman influence, the Alawi dynasty established itself in 1631. As Sufism was very strong in the area, the Sultan was dependent on these rural brotherhoods and the urban Ulama for legitimacy. The Sultan would go on Mahalla campaigns to flex his military might and to demand tribute from the al-siba tribes that did not swear direct loyalty to him. When the Sultan seemed weak or the tribes were dissatisfied with him, they would rebel and find a replacement from within the Alawi family.

Economically, the Maghreb had been largely self-sufficient. The Trans-Sahara trade routes as well as profits from privateering, combined with agricultural production provided the bulk of economic activity. In the beginning of the 19^th century, the decline of the Ottoman influence in the Mediterranean, as well as European penetration into Africa adversely affected these profits.

The Maghreb’s first experience with colonization came in Algeria. Responding to a diplomatic slight, the French invaded. The ruling Dey was quickly overthrown, and the French immediately started seizing the native’s land and displacing their population. Along with a large population transfer from France came the complete dismantling of pre-existing Algerian society, religious institutions and schools.

The defeat of the Dey did not mean that resistance to the Europeans was to end. It continued in the form of ‘Abd Al Qadir, a Sufi intellectual who opposed the French invaders along with the privileged Ottoman system. He combined this ideology with economic and military development, which garnered much popular support. For this reason he is considered the father of Algerian nationalism. Even after his defeat Sufi resistance continued. The length of resistance proved to the French that they would be unable to have a partial occupation, and they proceeded to pacify and colonize all of Algeria. The continued fighting combined with the continuing French seizures of the most valuable Algerian land largely disrupted the internal economy leading to further uprisings and vast poverty.

By 1870, the Colons in Algeria had become a powerful political force in France and were pushed through their agenda of land grabbing and native oppression. Because of the large-scale opposition and devastation this caused among the native population, the French experience in Algeria became eventual model of what to avoid in Tunisia and Morocco. Starting in the middle of the 19^th century, France, Spain and Britain and other colonial powers were exerting increasing influence on these relatively weak regions. They were able to secure increasing numbers of economic and political concessions for their countrymen, while weakening the native governments.

The difference was that although Algeria becomes a part of France proper, Tunisia and Morocco went from being spheres of influence to ‘Protectorates’ in 1881 and 1912 respectively. In Tunisia, a constitutional monarchy was established in 1861, but this served to limit the power of the local government and give additional rights to the large foreign populations there rather than strengthen the state. As was done in Morocco, a native government was kept in place to avoid the mistakes made in Algeria.

The forms of resistance for the Maghreb changed much since its first encounters with foreign powers. The resistance shifted from more tribal and Sufi resistance to more intellectual and unified resistance starting in the early 20^th century. There were two factors involved in this. In Tunisia and Algeria, the western oriented, trained and educated elite sought assimilation with France. Modeling themselves off the Young Turks, the Young Tunisians and Young Algerians wanted to put their proto-nationalistic demands in terms that the French would understand and heed. Because of the very limited scope of their support, these movements were quickly crushed. Another, more powerful force would be more successful in achieving its demands.

The Salafi movement sought to reform Islam and instead of avoiding Westerners like the Sufis wanted, engage and deal with them. This force became strong and easily mobilized because of the phenomenon of mass-urbanization that transformed the previously rural population. The proximity and unity of these newly urban populations meant they were no longer divided by tribal loyalties but rather united in their oppression under the colonial system. Through them the various nationalist leaders were able to voice and mobilize their demands in such a way that the Europeans could no longer simply ignore. In Morocco, Abdul Karim would be an example of such a leader.

Further hurting the native economies and populations, the two world wars brought upon inflation, increasing taxes and requisition of native crops upon the Maghreb. Despite brief periods of prosperity, this period generally brought further economic ruin for much of the region. There was also vast native troop deployment across Europe in the defense of France. These sacrifices added increasing fuel to the fire of nationalism.

After the end of World War II, the great fight for democracy against fascism that many North Africans had fought bravely in, it became impossible for the French to ignore the powerful demands for independence. In an attempt to retain control, the French sough to ‘reform’ their colonial governments and reign in the nationalist movements. Algeria contained by far the largest Colon population and was the area that France focused most of its efforts in. They did this by granting Algerian Muslims for the first time the right to vote for members of Algerian Assembly. Responding to early nationalist candidate victories, the colon government responded with massive fraud and voter intimidation intended to defeat the nationalist candidates. As a result an increasing number of Algerians became disillusioned with looking to political processes to better their lot. By 1954 a guerilla war had been launched to defeat the French.

In Tunisia the nationalist political parties were also repressed and leaders were exiled or jailed. The Neo-Dustar party took the lead here and was able to mobilize large amounts of the population in protest. Repression of these protests led to widespread, violent insurrection by the fellagha guerillas. This left France without the means or will to retain control. It had no choice but to allow the return of the nationalist leaders and eventually a negotiated settlement which was reached. This process brought to light a major conflict between the two most prominent Tunisian leaders, the western-oriented Bouruiba and the Islamic-oriented Ben Yousef. Bouriba won out this conflict, Ben Yousef had to flee the country, and the future path of the country was set as Bouriba went on to claim the presidency for the next several decades.

Morocco had been an important partner for the Allied powers and the country was rewarded by a visit from President Roosevelt who spoke of a Moroccan independence based on the Atlantic Charter. Morocco was a unique example because of the political aptitude of the Sultan Sidi Mohammed II. Nationalistic himself, he was able to keep himself above the petty rivalries that plagued the broad nationalist coalition. Eventually his immense popularity made a French effort to thwart independence and to depose him short lived. Events in the third country in the Maghreb would set the backdrop for the granting of independence to both Tunisia and Morocco in March 1956.

Algeria followed a different path. Lacking a strong, unifying middle class, and a legacy of a continuity of institutions from which Tunisia and Morocco found strength, Algerians had to wait till the formation of the FLN to be fully united on the question of national independence. Successfully able to gain near unanimous internal support, as well as international approval, the Algerian War for Independence would become one of the bloodiest and most brutal wars of the post-WWII era. This eventually resulted in Algerian Independence in 1964 but this enormous conflict did incalculable damage to Algeria, left the country in ruin, and the FLN fractured. Algerians have paid a heavy toll ever since.

Batt le of Algiers Reaction Paper

The movie Battle of Algiers depicts the initial conflict in the capital of Algeria which soon spread throughout the country and culminated with the French withdrawing their troops. While watching the entire film, one cannot get over the sense of authenticity and realism that permeates through the film maker, Gillo Pontecorvo’s style. I later learned that Pontecorvo himself fought against both the Germans and the fascists in Italy during World War II as a member of the resistance movement. His familiarity with guerilla movements, and his hands-on approach working with the members of the FLN certainly was evident throughout the film.

After the movie, I also learned that the author was heavily influenced both by the writing of France Fanon and, equally important, I believe, Antonio Gramsci. Where as Fanon wrote about the use of violence in dislodging imperial regimes, obviously applicable to the situation in Algiers at the time, the more interesting influence is that of Gramsci’s writings. Gramsci’s major premise about the established hegemony, represented here by the French, is only possible through the cooperation of the subordinate group, represented by the native Algerians. The wars of movements (such as the labor boycott) that he conceptualized are vividly depicted slowly but surely eroding the power of the French through the increasing militant stance towards the French the native Algerians took on. It was the Algerian middle class that the French and FLN were fighting over and which through their brutality the French lost, and through their bravery and uncompromising tactics, the FLN won over. This revival of the middle class, whose identity was destroyed by over 100 years of colonization, was necessary for the defeat of colonization.

Al Bailey

If someone had told Al Bailey that he would one day be receiving the Maryland State Legislature’s highest honor, he would probably pinch himself to see if he was dreaming. This is exactly what took place on Wednesday March 28^th, 2007 at the General Assembly in Annapolis. The significance of this event when looked at through a historical perspective is immense. When one notes that it was an African-American Delegate, Herman Taylor that spoke on Mr. Bailey’s behalf and that it was the Black Caucus that campaigned for him to receive this honor, one can fully appreciate the scope of this event.

Delegate Taylor, when giving his speech in front of the General Assembly, talked about how sixty years ago, when Bailey, and other members of the proud Tuskegee Airmen, veterans of World War II, returned home from Europe, they couldn’t believe the treatment they got. This was to contrast the hero’s treatment they received in Europe, and this treatment, which they received from Europe’s largely white population showed to them that racial harmony was possible. While white Veterans were given the G.I. Bill, marches and other forms of appreciation, black veterans such as Bailey returned home as second class citizens. Delegate Taylor emphasized that as Bailey returned home after completing one war- against fascism abroad, he had just started his second battle, against the racism he faced at home.

For Bailey, who was a brother of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity, this treatment gave him even more determination in his fight for civil rights equal treatment. This was the same for many veterans of World War II which was supposedly a battle for democracy.

Taylor went on to recognize Bailey’s efforts to memorialize the greatest Civil Rights leader of them all- Dr. King, at the national mall. For twenty years Bailey fought to recognize Dr. King at the mall. Not only is the memorial itself significant, but its location as well. Bailey was among those present at the capital for King’s famous “I have a dream” speech, so it seemed appropriate for him that the National Mall, which served as the backdrop of the speech, would house Dr. King’s memorial. Although Dr. King has received many local and state-wide recognitions, this would be by far the most prominent and most striking. Furthermore King’s contribution would finally be recognized as the only non-president honored at the mall.

It is important to note that this event was the culmination of the Maryland’s legislature’s efforts in promoting awareness of Black History month. This served as an excellent recognition of African-American’s contributions and sacrifices in promoting equality and justice in America, as well as their sacrifices in doing so.

Maryland was one of the main battlegrounds for the Civil Rights movement, and many important victories in the battle for legal de-segregation were fought and won in Maryland- by the likes of Thurgood Marshall and Charles Houston. There important victories against the University Of Maryland Law School paved the way for many other victories in the attempt to ‘chip away’ at Plessey vs. Ferguson’s decision of ‘separate but equal’. This adds to the significance of the current General Assembly passing this resolution, as it was these men and women’s predecessors that were fighting on the other side of the battle- on the side that they are now acknowledging was the wrong and losing side of the debate.

More than anything else, this event shows how far this country, and state has come in terms of equality, civil rights and race relations. This could be called a 180 degree turn in respects to the direction that the country is headed. At the same time though, it could be pointed out that the fact that it took the combined efforts of the Black Caucus to bring about this recognition for Mr. Bailey. One could also point out that it was African-American Delegate Herman Taylor that spoke in bringing this recognition. The fact that it took Black people to bring about this recognition could be interpreted both ways- both that the achievements being recognized means more to black people, or, that this point to the short collective memory that White America has on the history of race relations.

One could also conceivably criticize the event on Wednesday for its purely symbolic nature. One could argue that if the resolution was matched with an effort to help the African-American community in Maryland- which is still recovering from the hundreds of years of oppression that it has experienced- that it would become more than merely a symbolic gesture. If this was matched with increase funding of the public school system- which in Baltimore City for example largely serves the Black community it would be more of a meaningful gesture. The black residents there have been among the more particularly oppressed, and to address the issues of crime, poverty, overcrowding of jails and classrooms from which they suffer would go a long way in alleviating the historical oppression that these communities have suffered.

Overall, it cannot be argued that it is bad that a black civil rights leader was recognized by African Americans serving in the state legislature. This demonstrates how far this community has come in fulfilling its dream. It is still of the utmost important though, that this should not overshadow fulfilling the dream of equal opportunity for those in America for which it is still out of reach.

Who killed Dr. King?

On April 4th, 1968, America’s greatest Civil Rights Leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Being the most visible leader of the Civil Rights Movement, King was a clear and visible target for those that opposed his views and his mission. His assassination sparked international outcry, near universal condemnation and an immediate FBI investigation. The intense media coverage and the investigation resulted in the conclusion that one James Earl Ray was the lone assassin responsible for his killing.
At the time, there were many that were skeptical of the conclusions of the investigation. 24 years later, in the 1992 documentary: Who Killed Martin Luther King?, the question is still being asked. The documentary doesn’t conform to a classical story telling narrative. It doesn’t explore conspiracy theories, or come to any solid conclusions. Rather, it starts by exploring King’s background. An important emphasis is made on his role as a Civil Rights leader, his personal significance to the movement, and most important: the animosity that existed between him and the FBI. The fact that the FBI Director at the time, J Edgar Hoover loathed King, and had been conducting round the clock surveillance on him is mentioned, along with the extraordinary fact that the FBI has documented records on King just up until the time of the assassination. Then the movie introduces the accused killer, James Earl Ray. The movie discusses his background, and the fact that he is now claiming his innocence.
The mix of archival footage, interviews with witnesses, interviews with those directly involved, along with historical recreations are all used very effectively by the film makers. Archival footage is used to introduce the important actors, and to set the solemn mood for the film. It is also used to explore different theories and holes in the official story. An example of this would be when the film discusses one witnesses’ testimony that he may have seen Dr. King’s real shooter hiding behind a white sheet across the street from the Lorraine hotel. Archival footage from the day after does confirm the presence of the sheet. Another example of archival footage would be the examination of the presence of an unexplained man who was pictured to be ducking the same time Dr. King was assassinated. The fact that the man could not be found since and was allegedly a CIA agent or an informer, is just one example of the many mysteries surrounding King’s death.
The interviews with the witnesses and those directly involved are the strongest components of the film. The extensive use of both allows the filmmakers to avoid unneeded controversy and speculation in their investigation. It is also, of course, powerful to see the witnesses, and the accused himself relive the moments of Dr. Kings death along with its aftermath. It is also invaluable that a former FBI agent who was personally involved in investigating and monitoring Dr. King was personally able to testify to his actions. This is one of the more hidden and forgotten facts about the time period, and to have someone confirm it, only gives the filmmakers more credibility.
The limited reliance on secondary sources and the significant focus on primary sources is essential if the filmmakers wanted to seriously investigate and document such a high-profile assassination, use their skeptical tone and still be able to walk away with a convincing documentary. The mix of primary and secondary sources, combined with the excellent narration combines to create a good balance during the film.
Another factor that adds to the strength of the film is the filmmaker’s inclusion of a fairly accurate and depiction of Dr. King. Where as school textbooks and other mainstream information sources downplay King’s anti-war stance, Who Killed Martin Luther King? emphasizes that fact. One can also praise them for including the fact that it was these anti-war views that particularly infuriated FBI director Hoover.
The final interview, with of Grace Walden is the most powerful and interesting part of the film. The fact that her testimony is corroborated by other people in regards to the fact that Charles Stevens was lying about seeing James Earl Ray shortly after the assassination is incredible. But when it is revealed that she was subsequently institutionalized for the following ten years with absolutely no justification absolutely is mind-boggling for the viewer.
Although the movie does cover King fairly well, if I was showing this movie to a class, I would give a greater context then the film provides. By far the most important fact is that it was totally within the norm of government action of the time to assassinate political opponents. The film’s limited scope prevents the film makers from delving into this topic, but one could bring up anyone of the dozens of foreign assassinations, military coups and sponsored plots to overthrow unfavorable regimes.
Of course, one cannot forget the state-violence that was carried out right in the United States itself. One could bring up the killing and infiltration of the Black Panthers, the killing of Malcolm X and any number of other leaders to develop this context. With this all in the viewers mind, it would be very clear why the filmmakers take a skeptical tone with the government’s official explanation. In fact, one could go as far as saying, if the government was in some way not responsible it would be an exception to the overall trend of how it treated its political opponents at the time.
Finally, the film concludes by pointing out the finding of House Select Committee on Assassinations, and their classified conclusions over who they believe was responsible for King’s death, which again unbelievably will not be declassified until 2029. Of course, the filmmakers could not know in 1992 that James Earl Ray would die in prison in 1998 or that King’s family would come out and publicly say that they do not believe him to be responsible for the killing.



AAS 314: The Civil Rights Movement
Who Killed Martin Luther King? Dir. Sygma Plaisance. West Long Branch, NJ : White Star, 1992.
(I found an alternate way to cite it using MLA, so I included both)
Plaisance, Sygma, Michel Parbot, and James Earl Ray. Who Killed Martin Luther King? West Long Branch, NJ: White Star, 1992.