Is Hamas the Palestinian Mau Mau?
After Kenya's independence, the leaders of the Mau Mau became symbols of the new state. Jomo Kenyatta, who was imprisoned by the British and presented as a dangerous terrorist, became the first prime minister and later the president of the country.
The agreement taking shape with Hamas, and the possibility that the organization will turn from a military body into a civilian and political entity with which one can negotiate, remind one of arrangements reached during the decolonization processes of the twentieth century, which arouses disgust among many Israelis. However, history teaches that such cases are not exceptional.
In the twentieth century, quite a few movements that were considered terrorist organizations became legitimate political partners after the end of national struggles. In the fifties and sixties, when the European empires retreated from Asia and Africa, there were many cases of bloody struggles between the colonial armies that managed the colonies and organizations that were terrorist or freedom-fighting, depending on the point of view and origin of the fighter. These struggles were bloody. The colonial authorities employed executions, torture, and mass arrests, while the rebel movements attacked soldiers, settlers, and sometimes civilians as well. Those who were freedom fighters in the eyes of one side were perceived as terrorists in the eyes of the other.
A similar process also occurred in Ireland and in the Land of Israel. Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Michael Collins, Gerry Adams, and Yasser Arafat were perceived at different times as heads of violent undergrounds, but later became political interlocutors. This is not to justify their actions, but to point to a change in their political status following a change in circumstances.
One of the prominent examples is the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya in the fifties. The Kikuyu people rebelled against British rule following land expropriation, discrimination, and colonial exploitation. The rebellion included acts of severe violence by the rebels, but also unprecedented suppression by Britain: detention camps, torture, and widespread killing of the local population. Parallel to the military campaign, a propaganda war was also waged. The settlers and the British press described the Mau Mau as a wild and dangerous organization, and spread stories about cruel voodoo rituals, ritual murders, and extraordinary cruelty. These images contributed to the creation of the figure of the "barbaric African" and of "dark Africa" against the self-image of the British Empire as an enlightened force bringing order and civilization. The demonization of the Mau Mau was, therefore, a central tool in the political and military struggle that Britain waged against the rebels.
The historical turn
However, history took a turn. After Kenya's independence, the leaders of the Mau Mau became symbols of the new state. Jomo Kenyatta, who was imprisoned by the British and presented as a dangerous terrorist, became the first prime minister and later the president of the country. Those who were previously considered enemies of civilization became the founders of the nation. Supporters of the Mau Mau, including Oginga Odinga, also reached key positions in the Kenyan state and in broader African politics.
Could a similar process occur in relation to Hamas? One cannot compare all cases. Hamas operates under different circumstances, holds a different ideology, and bears responsibility for severe terrorist acts, first and foremost the massacre of October 7. Hezbollah also belongs to a different context. A historical comparison is not a moral comparison and is not intended to blur the severity of the acts of violence. And yet, history teaches that the status of organizations is not fixed. Organizations that were defined for years as terrorist became, when political conditions changed, part of the new political order.
The question is not whether such a process is desirable, but whether it is possible. Therefore, the discussion about the future of Hamas should not be based only on the feelings of anger that are understandable following its crimes, but also on a sober historical view. History does not repeat itself, but it teaches that organizations, regimes, and people sometimes change in ways that seemed inconceivable in real time. The question is not how we define Hamas today, but how its status will be shaped if and when political conditions in the region change.
The author is a historian and cultural researcher, a professor in the Department of History and Philosophy at Shenkar College, and also teaches at Reichman University and the Hebrew University.
