Hamas’s crackdown on Gaza’s youth

Closure of the Sharek Youth Forum reflects the growing influence of fundamentalists.

A student demonstration in support of the Sharek Youth Forum in Gaza City was brutally broken up by Hamas police yesterday, following the forced closure of the group's offices last Tuesday. Demonstration organisers claim a girl of 18 was beaten and 20 others were arrested on charges of protesting without a permit. At least three are still being held.

Sufian Mshasha, co-founder of Sharek, told us he was "happy that people in Gaza were still willing to stand up for causes they believe in", but expressed fears that the forum's supporters could face further intimidation.

Sharek's liberal agenda had resulted in frequent clashes with the Hamas government prior to its closure, which has announced that the forum is now under criminal investigation on unspecified charges. Sharek staff protest the closure is illegal and unjust.

In the past seven months, the group's offices have been repeatedly raided and members of staff have been subjected to physical intimidation, harassment and threats. During this time, the xecutive manager, Muheib Shaath, has been summoned to 15 separate interrogations from internal security. A summer camp run by Sharek in partnership with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was destroyed in May.

Mshasha told us the harassment and ultimate closure were "prompted by our agenda of democracy, social development, and our insistence on holding activities for both genders". He claimed that "80-90 per cent" of questioning of Sharek staff focused on their practice of encouraging both sexes to take part in their programmes.

Mshasha believes the closure is in violation of the 2000 charitable societies and NGOs law, which states: "The closure of any society or organisation should be according to a decision issued by a court of law." Despite verbal threats and an order from the attorney general, Mohammed Abed, no legal process took place to justify the police's actions.

Sharek, which also has offices in Ramallah, has a broad mandate to promote youth empowerment in the Palestinian territories. It serves 65,000 children in Gaza, through capacity-building, education workshops and social activities. Some of these have been perceived to violate sharia law, including concerts and a mixed-gender trip to the beach.

The forum has also come under fire for its links to UNRWA, from which it receives funding, and other international organisations.

Shasha claims the group is sensitive to Gaza's conservative environment. "Our director is an observant Muslim, our IT technician wears a burqa. Almost all the women wear traditional Islamic dress and all our volunteers are from Gaza." He also denies Sharek is opposed to Hamas: "We hold all political groups accountable [for failing to promote youth empowerment], but Hamas take our actions as accusations."

Sharek has enjoyed a good relationship with high-ranking members of the Hamas administration. Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh is said to have supported its cause, but to have been unable to protect it from more conservative elements of his government.

The Gaza journalist Mohammed Mohanna believes this exemplifies a worrying lack of central control. "There are three parts of Hamas: military, government and the mosque groups [dowas]. The mosque leaders are very powerful. They influence the government by saying, 'Look what these associations do, they are all bitches and motherfuckers, they are against Islam.'

"It creates a lot of pressure. They have been campaigning against shisha pipes in coffee shops and women without hijabs."

He believes Hamas officials infiltrate associations like Sharek in order to control them. "They change the faces, run it differently and do what they want."

The increased pressure on development groups such as Sharek was demonstrated by the recent closure of two associated organisations, although these were run by the municipality itself. "It's crazy, but sometimes the decisions are just stupid, they don't have a plan," Shasha says.

Since the closure is technically temporary rather than permanent, Sharek is unable to bring a legal case against it. The group hopes to win enough popular support, which Shasha claims has been coming in waves in Gaza, to force the government to reverse the action. Sharek is petitioning prominent politicians in the West Bank and Gaza to come to its aid.

Shasha believes the principle is too important to let go. "The fundamentalist elements measure adherence to Islam by how boys and girls dress," he says. "This latest move is a very dangerous indication of their influence."

When Hamas was elected in 2006, it was with a commitment not to impose sharia law and a pledge to accept pluralism in society. "This is why they won the election," Shasha says. "All our efforts now are to make them respect the promise."

Kieron Monks is a freelance reporter and editor of the Palestine Monitor news website, based in Ramallah.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The divisions within Labour

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change.

Labour is a party torn between its parliamentary and activist wings. Since Jeremy Corbyn, who this week appealed desperately for unity, was re-elected by a landslide last September, Labour has become the first opposition in 35 years to lose a ­by-election to the governing party and has continually trailed the Conservatives by a double-digit margin. Yet polling suggests that, were Mr Corbyn’s leadership challenged again, he would win by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, many of the party’s most gifted and experienced MPs refuse to serve on the front bench. In 2015 Mr Corbyn made the leadership ballot only with the aid of political opponents such as Margaret Beckett and Frank Field. Of the 36 MPs who nominated him, just 15 went on to vote for him.

Having hugely underestimated the strength of the Labour left once, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not do so again. In the contest that will follow Mr Corbyn’s eventual departure, the centrists could lock out potential successors such as the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey. Under Labour’s current rules, candidates require support from at least 15 per cent of the party’s MPs and MEPs.

This conundrum explains the attempt by Mr Corbyn’s supporters to reduce the threshold to 5 per cent. The “McDonnell amendment” (named after the shadow chancellor, who failed to make the ballot in 2007 and 2010) is being championed by the Bennite Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Jon Lansman of Momentum, who is interviewed by Tanya Gold on page 34. “For 20 years the left was denied a voice,” he tweeted to the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, on 19 March. “We will deny a voice to no one. We face big challenges, and we need our mass membership to win again.”

The passage of the amendment at this year’s Labour conference would aid Mr Lansman’s decades-long quest to bring the party under the full control of activists. MPs have already lost the third of the vote they held under the electoral college system. They face losing what little influence they retain.

No Labour leader has received less support from his MPs than Mr Corbyn. However, the amendment would enable the election of an even more unpopular figure. For this reason, it should be resolutely opposed. One should respect the motivation of the members and activists, yet Labour must remain a party capable of appealing to a majority of people, a party that is capable of winning elections.

Since it was founded, Labour has been an explicitly parliamentary party. As Clause One of its constitution states: “[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” The absurdity of a leader opposed by as much as 95 per cent of his own MPs is incompatible with this mission. Those who do not enjoy the backing of their parliamentary colleagues will struggle to persuade the voters that they deserve their support.

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change. Rather than formalising this split, the party needs to overcome it – or prepare for one of the greatest defeats in its history.

This article first appeared in the 23 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's permanent revolution