Mustafa El-Feki* reflects on national and religious resistance, and finds the former rather more compelling The accession of Hamas to power in Palestine brought up questions with an immediate bearing on the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is particularly true as far as the politicisation of religion is concerned. We simply cannot equate the resistance with one brand of religious leanings. Nationality is something that transcends all trends and beliefs, political as well as religious. So allow me to point out the following: Partners in any homeland are equal in rights and duties. Their defence of the national soil and their resistance of the occupier is a duty that applies to all regardless of religious doctrine, political tendency or economic level. Everyone is equal in facing the weapons of the enemy and no group should be given the honour of resistance to the exclusion of others. Palestinian resistance, in my opinion, is an Islamic and Christian effort. We all know that the Christians of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine have solid pan-Arab credentials. Levantine Christians have been at the cutting edge of liberation and enlightenment in the region throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. When we speak of Jerusalem, I notice that more emphasis is laid upon its religious character than its historic status and demographic composition. It would be helpful to refer to Jerusalem as land that was occupied on 5 June 1967 and therefore entitled to the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. This is the first argument we should be making, and only afterwards may we discuss the religious, historic, and humanitarian aspects. Our primary argument should be one that is indisputable and non-controversial, that excludes no one and leaves no one behind. The fact that Hamas won the recent legislative elections gave it a new role, one through which it could emerge from the mantle of religion and embrace all other groups of resistance. The religious character is harming the resistance, for it disrupts national unity. The bishops of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and other Christian clergymen have always treated the Palestinian issue as a nationalist cause. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre has given refuge to Palestinian strugglers, both Muslim and Christian, when Israeli tanks rolled into Palestinian cities and villages during the Jenin debacle. Such behaviour suggests a common struggle that doesn't depend on religion alone. Palestine, just as the rest of the countries of the Levant, has a history of national struggle that rises above sectarianism. The Palestinians fought against the Turks not over religious differences but because of nationalist considerations. In doing so, they were a step ahead of the Egyptians, where the nationalist movement started with religious overtones at the hands of Ahmed Orabi and Mustafa Kamel. It was Saad Zaghlul who finally ended the dichotomy of nationalist and religious sentiments. His Wafd Party -- which propagated liberal, secular, and national unity -- adopted the position that Egypt belonged to all Egyptians and that Muslims and Christians are brothers in the fight for liberation. So let's not forget that the Levant taught us a lesson or two. The starting point for struggle in the Levant was a nationalist one, whereas the starting point in Egypt was Islamic, led by Al-Azhar. It is also clear that nationalist resistance is more internationally credible than religious resistance. With international tensions on the rise, it is becoming increasingly harmful to mix religion and resistance. On more than one occasion, religious resistance has been portrayed as terrorism. This is a fact that we can ignore at our own risk. For this reason, our struggle should remain nationalist, not Islamist. The events of July and August 2006 in Lebanon prove how easy it is to equate religious resistance with outside influences. Therefore, I would like us all to refer to "national Lebanese resistance" rather than "Islamic resistance". No one must be excluded from the resistance over their religious affiliations. Let's recall that people such as George Habash, Nayif Hawatemah, and the martyr Kamal Nasser are true heroes of the Palestinian resistance and an ever-lasting proof that the Palestinians stand together regardless of sect and creed. Some figures in the history of Palestinian struggle, from Haj Amin Al-Husseini to Yasser Arafat, have brought an Islamic colour to the resistance. This shouldn't be a problem so long as we manage this Islamic colour and make it part of the whole, not an exclusive trend. It must be disturbing to non-Muslim Arabs to hear the media refer to a Lebanese Islamic resistance and a Palestinian Islamic resistance. The religious portrayal of the conflict in the Middle East has never benefited the Arabs. The politicisation of religion has never been helpful. And I am not absolving Egypt from blame. It was in Egypt, after all, that political Islam made its debut. It was in Egypt that Hassan El-Banna formed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. The current struggle against the Israeli occupation has been bogged down due to the politicisation of religion. A perfectly legitimate resistance has been denounced due to its religious leanings. The fact that the resistance symbolises the aspirations of a whole nation is often forgotten. The national resistance against Israeli occupation deserves to be freed from its religious connotations, for it is much easier to demonise a religious resistance than a nationalist one. Therefore, the best help we can offer to the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance is to free them from their religious rhetoric. We mustn't talk of Hizbullah as a Shia resistance, as some like to say. Hassan Nasrallah is Lebanese and the Shias are not fighters imported from abroad. Accordingly, Hizbullah is a Lebanese and Arab movement. Likewise, Hamas is a main part of the Palestinian resistance, and we mustn't treat it as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is simply a "nationalist Palestinian resistance" aiming to liberate the land and establish an independent state. I am deeply alarmed by the success of Israel and its friends in depicting Arab resistance as a religious rather than nationalist phenomenon. This is a terrible injustice to all of us. Finally, let me add three relevant remarks: To begin with, I am not suggesting that we deny the spiritual context of the Palestinian or Lebanese resistance. After all, Islam is a religion of struggle known for its opposition to occupation and injustice. Secondly, what the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance did was a fine way of breaking the current deadlock. I am not against political endeavours nor am I belittling the value of struggle. Finally, Arab Christians are an integral part of the resistance. The bishop of Jerusalem often sounds more adamant and outspoken on political matters than some Islamic institutions. And the Coptic pope in Egypt is often more vocal than Al-Azhar. Today, the Arab resistance is torn between religion and nationalism. It is my belief that spirituality should remain in our heart, a force that propel us towards unity, not division. * The writer is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the People's Assembly.
