Power Suits 2 May 2017
Leaders of Hamas released a document outlining their guiding principles at a press conference in the Qatari capital Doha on Monday.
Much coverage focused on the document’s acceptance of the 1967 boundary as the basis for establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The document also includes pronouncements on how Hamas views the roots of the conflict, the role of resistance and its position towards Jews.
It aims to reposition Hamas as part of a Palestinian national consensus and as an interlocutor which can eventually be part of an internationally brokered political resolution.
The document attempts to do this while not compromising basic principles, an exercise that leads to some apparent contradictions.
Hamas also aims to assert its independence from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement founded almost a century ago in Egypt and which is viewed as an enemy by several regional regimes.
With an eye to international opinion, Hamas released its “Document of General Principles and Policies” in official Arabic and English versions.
Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said the new document had been two years in the making, but it is really the culmination of internal debates that go back more than a decade.
Jews are not the enemy
Hamas leaders have long recognized that the group’s founding charter, written by one man in 1988, served as an impediment to political outreach within and beyond Palestine.
Few would dispute that the worst aspect of the original charter was its unabashedly anti-Jewish language. Borrowing from classic European anti-Semitism, it even cites as a reference the Tsarist anti-Semitic hoax The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Even if this long ago ceased to reflect Hamas leaders’ thinking, these odious statements served as reliable weapons in Israel’s anti-Palestinian propaganda arsenal.
By contrast, the new document states: “Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.”
This brings Hamas into line with the historic position of the Palestinian national movement. As Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat stated in his 1974 speech to the United Nations, “We do distinguish between Judaism and Zionism. While we maintain our opposition to the colonialist Zionist movement, we respect the Jewish faith.”
Meshaal had already made a similar statement during his 2012 visit to the Gaza Strip. “We do not fight the Jews because they are Jews,” he said. “We fight the Zionist occupiers and aggressors. And we will fight anyone who tries to occupy our lands or attacks us.”
The original charter characterizes the problem in Palestine as rooted in Muslim-Jewish religious strife and describes the land of Palestine as an Islamic waqf, or endowment.
But in his 2007 book Hamas: A History from Within, scholar Azzam Tamimi writes that Hamas leaders already felt that they needed to move away from these concepts and seek more universal language.
Tamimi notes that under the influence of such thinkers as Abdelwahab Elmessiri, “the problem of Palestine is today seen by many Islamists, including leaders and members of Hamas, simply as the outcome of a colonial project” which could better be explained “in political, social or economic terms, than in terms of religion.”
The new document reflects this thinking: “The Palestinian cause in its essence is a cause of an occupied land and a displaced people.”
It also removes mention of Palestine as an Islamic waqf, affirming rather that “Palestine is a land whose status has been elevated by Islam” – just as it has been in other religions. Palestine is “the birthplace of Jesus Christ,” it states, and the resting place of prophets.
In the new document, Hamas states that the “establishment of ‘Israel’ is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.” It affirms that there will be no recognition of the “usurping Zionist entity” or any concession on the right of return for refugees.
Yet in seeming contradiction, it states: “without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”
In other words, Hamas is formally signing up to the two-state solution at the very moment it is becoming clear that such an outcome will not come about.
Putting that aside, a good analogy for Hamas’ balancing act would be the Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin’s acceptance of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, which entailed entering a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland, while simultaneously continuing to reject partition.
In the wake of last year’s British vote to exit the European Union, Sinn Féin is reviving its campaign to abolish Northern Ireland and bring about a single state on the island of Ireland, an outcome the Belfast Agreement allows if a majority backs it in a referendum.
Something similar has been articulated by Hamas leaders for years. In a 2006 New York Times article, Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef proposed a long-term truce, or hudna, citing the Irish peace process as a model for ending conflict without Palestinians abandoning their positions. A years-long “period of calm,” he argued, might create later the conditions for a durable political settlement that do not exist now.
In 2009, Meshaal told The New York Times that his party had “accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders including East Jerusalem, dismantling settlements, and the right of return based on a long-term truce.”
The new document attempts a similar balancing act with respect to internal Palestinian politics. It states that the 1993 Oslo accords signed between the PLO and Israel “violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” and it strongly condemns as “collaboration” the ongoing “security coordination” between Israeli forces and the PA.
But Hamas also accepts the PA as a reality, arguing that it should “serve the Palestinian people and safeguard their security, their rights and their national project.” Hamas also calls for rebuilding the PLO – of which it is not currently a member – on “democratic foundations.”
Since it won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, Hamas has been subjected to discriminatory conditions by the so-called Quartet – the ad hoc grouping of EU, UN, US and Russian officials – who claim authority over the question of Palestine.
In order to be recognized as an interlocutor, Hamas is required to renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept all previous agreements.
Israel, meanwhile, is not required to recognize a Palestinian state or any Palestinian rights; Israel continues to use violence, not just with impunity but with weapons supplied by Quartet states; and Israel routinely tramples signed agreements and international law with its massive colonization of occupied Palestinian land.
In its new document, Hamas asserts that resistance, including armed resistance, “is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws.” Indeed, the right to armed resistance against occupation is internationally recognized.
But it also reserves “the right of our people to develop the means and mechanisms of resistance.”
Hamas adds: “Managing resistance, in terms of escalation or de-escalation, or in terms of diversifying the means and methods, is an integral part of the process of managing the conflict and should not be at the expense of the principle of resistance.”
In other words, Hamas sees armed resistance as something to be used or not used as circumstances dictate. If a political horizon opens up, it can turn away from armed resistance without conceding the right, just as other resistance and liberation movements have done.
Israel, unsurprisingly, dismissed Hamas’ new document before it had even been published, as a rebranding exercise designed to “fool the world.”
The reality, however, is that despite their differences, both major wings of the Palestinian national movement have expressed varying degrees of readiness for an accommodation with Israel.
It is Israel that stands adamantly against any political process or agreement that would place a limit on its voracious theft of Palestinian land.
More than providing anything new, the Hamas document confirms and enshrines long-term shifts in the movement’s thinking at a moment when it is about to undergo a political transition – Meshaal announced last September that he would soon be stepping down.
For all the significance that may have, it does not resolve the basic problem afflicting the institutionalized Palestinian national movement: neither Hamas, nor Fatah – its rival headed by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas – has a vision to mobilize and unite Palestinians in a struggle for their rights and land at a moment when the two-state solution has become irrelevant.
- two-state solution
- Muslim Brotherhood
- Khaled Meshaal
- Yasser Arafat
- Palestine Liberation Organization
- Azzam Tamimi
- Abdelwahab Elmessiri
- right of return
- Northern Ireland
- Sinn Fein
- Belfast Agreement
- united Ireland
- Ahmed Yousef
- Oslo accords
- security coordination
- Mahmoud Abbas
Hamas for ODS
Permalink Blake Alcott replied on
Thanks for the analysis and the link to the actual document.
Ali Abunimah closes with an appeal for a 'vision to mobilize and unite Palestinians' that is not the two-state solution. But this should be the beginning! Ali Abunimah knows what that vision is. He wrote a whole book about it and advocates it still: One Democratic State. The conditions are ripe for ODS to grow 100-fold, but this means all those like Ali who support it please get behind it vocally now and organise it. Now that the two-state solution is, fortunately, dead, it's time to move.
I read the English version of the new charter and disagree with Ali when he writes that 'Hamas is... signing up to the two-state solution.' That is not what the document says. On the contrary, just like ODS it explicitly supports 1) the reunification of Palestine and 2) the right of return to places of origin in Israel, and 3) rejects the 'Zionist entity' (Israel) absolutely. Those are exactly the 3 things the two-state solution does not include! The Palestinian state Hamas wants for now, until full liberation happens, does not come at the price of 1) partition, 2) reneging on right of return and 3) accepting a permanent Israel as a Jewish state. That is what 'the two-state solution' is and it's not at all what Hamas is saying.
Unless I've missed something. Feedback please.
Permalink Anje replied on
"In its new document, Hamas asserts that resistance, including armed resistance, “is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws.”
Slippery slope those "divine laws," as anyone with a different sky fairy (Israel) can claim their own and their right to do absolutely anything to anyone because "divine law." Revolutionaries do not believe in gods or laws created by books of myths. Why would Hamas' "divine law" be any more relevant than Israhelli "divine law." The truth is no one who believes in "divine law" as a governing position has any right to govern. People can believe anything they want, but when they tie governance to those beliefs they become dictators. Look at Saudi Arabia for example. Look at Israel for another example.
ONE secular state of Palestine from the river to the sea, with equal rights for all (including women!) and no right of return for Jews, only for Palestinians who lived on the land and had history there.
Indeed, Jews are not the enemy!
Permalink Daniel Waterman replied on
Indeed, Jews are not the enemy. Many of us are vehemently opposed to the policies of the Israeli government. It seems that the national project has been hijacked. Mistakes were made but they got consistently worse. The Jewish community needs to stand strong in solidarity with Palestinians, even against those among us who can't or won't. At the moment our power is limited. I personally would welcome any chance for solidarity with Palestinians, and yes, even Hamas. A country should not be run like a business or property. Emilio Zapata once said, "the land belongs to those who work it". His revolutionary call is for brotherhood and sisterhood of all mankind to unite against oppression of any kind. With its colonialist policies and its neoliberal economics and militarism the Israeli state has taken a disastrous turn against the will of a majority. We have to recognise that this is not how things might have gone if there was a real democracy. Had that been the case we would have been forced to negotiate and seek political and economic solutions. I fervently hope for a solution based on justice for all. Netanyahu is a war criminal and he should be in prison. However, we need Hamas to reach out to those of us in the Jewish community who will make this happen. Today is a step in the right direction and I hope it will continue. A huge battle is being waged to get others in the Jewish community to see the injustices and act to correct them. We of the BDS movement will not stop our struggle.
Permalink Henry Lowi replied on
"A Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital" was the formula for PLO capitulation long bedore Oslo, before Madrid, and before the Intifada. Actually, the Intifada was a grassroots protest against the impotence of this diplomatic formula. Ali's last sentence is correct, but 2 generations of leaders have learned nothing and achieved nothing. Meanwhile, all have discredited themselves by boycotting the oppressed people of Syria.
this is new
Permalink Blake Alcott replied on
Dear Henry Lowi, I disagree, and wrote a Comment above saying why. The PLO when it started on the two-state road in 1974, winding through the PNC in Algeria in 1988, then Oslo and now Mr Abbas and Mr Erekat panicking as they see Trump about ready to pull the plug on the two-state solution, was never anywhere near as clear as Hamas now is that the mini-state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was just a first step to 1) healing partition, 2) right of return TO THE 48-OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, and 3) control over all of historic Palestine. One Democratic State.
So if the mini-state in the 67-occupied territories comes at no cost on these other points - or at the price of recognising Israel 'as a Jewish state' - then why not? Since Hamas is making it clear for all to see what their end goals are, and these entail the end of the Jewish state in Palestine, it's just one more reason for Israel to refuse two-states. But so what? They've always refused giving up 'Judea and Samarai' and always will. So it don't make no nevermind what Hamas says at the non-existent Israel-Palestine bargaining table. Leave it. Ignore the smoke about the 'state within the 67 borders'. It is pure PR. In fact, let's shut up about it and let Hamas get on with becoming internationally acceptable.
Oh how I hope Fatah adopts a platform half as good as this one. PFLP has always agreed with the substance of this new charter. There's a fledgling diaspora organisation that met in Istanbul in March that more or less agrees with this. Except to the extent the PA egos get in the way there is a chance for unity I think.
Thanks for the analysis!
Permalink ibrahim replied on
Thanks for the analysis!
I am not a Hamas supporter, but I think, this document does not accept the "two-state-solution". It states that Hamas will be part of a Palestinian state within the 1967-territories. Does this state have to be created at the expense of recognizing the "usurping Zionist entity"? No. One-sided Israeli withdrawal from the West-Bank (like it did from Gaza and Southern Lebanon), establishment of a Palestinian state and a 30-yrs truce without mutual recognition is one possible scenario for the future. But no "solution". I think, this is the line of Hamas.
As far as Israeli rejectionism is concerned, it is neither new nor surprising. It's fair to say, Hamas did not conceive this document to address the "usurping zionist entity" to begin with. So, better if Natanyahu & Co. just calm down.
The best "solution" is to
Permalink John replied on
The best "solution" is to have a secular democratic state for all of historic Palestine.
This should ensure equal rights for all, regardless of beliefs.
There should be an equal right of inward migration for all - regardless of beliefs.
They could apply controls based on the knowledge, skills and qualifications of potential migrants.
The area referred to as Samaria surely means the area lived in by Samarians?
If so, they do still live there - outside Nablus, as I understand it.
Some others live in the Galilee area too.
The Samaritans have demonstrated that they are capable of living peacefully with anyone.
Today, they number only a few thousand but they could grow as a community again.
The zionists are partly responsible for holding back the growth of the Samarians.
They are also responsible for holding back the moral growth of Israelis and Palestinians.
All in all, their outdated colonialism is exacting a heavy toll on everyone concerned.
It is time the people of Israel-Palestine realised this - and kicked the zionists out!
Peace Process vers. 7.1.3
Permalink amind replied on
Does any sane person really believe Israel wants a two state solution? The don't want a solution, they are buying time to continue the ethnic cleansing of all of historic Palestine, while their propoganda mills continue blasting out the tired "wipe Israel off the map". The truth is the opposite. Zionism wiped Palestine off the map and any leader who thinks this continued process will lead anywhere is either a fool or a traitor.