Hamas
Rise to power
The myth that Hamas wants to destroy Israel
Official statements
The question of recognition
Renouncing violence
Rise to power
On 21 February 2006, Hamas (Harakat al-Muqawima al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Resistance Movement) was asked to form the next Palestinian government after it trounced Fatah in the January elections to the legislative council, winning 74 seats out of 132. Just over a month later, on 29 March, Hamas formed the government by appointing a cabinet that was approved by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Since the democratic elections, considered by international monitors to be free and fair, Hamas has been ostracised by Israel, the EU (with some exceptions) and the US, while Russia, China, South Africa, and Arab and Muslim countries have been more accommodating, and have entered into talks with the new government.
In the media, Hamas is portrayed as an obstacle to peace, whereas the unilateral and illegal measures adopted by the Israeli government are generally overlooked. However, this characterisation of Hamas is unduly simplistic. It is, in fact, more pragmatic than many Western journalists portray it to be.
The myth that Hamas wants to destroy Israel
Press reports on Hamas often state that the organisation’s goal is the “destruction of Israel” or, if they are written in particularly melodramatic moments, to “drive the Jews into the sea”. There are a number of misrepresentations in these statements.
Firstly, they often imply that Israel is in danger of survival. There seems to be a leap in the argument here: they do not indicate how a state armed with the fourth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the highest calibre weapons ever produced and protected by the biggest military machine in history could be destroyed by a group who are wholly under-funded under equipped, with little military training. There is simply no balance of power to speak of.
Furthermore, such press statements misunderstand how the political leadership of Hamas has long realised that Israel cannot be defeated by a paramilitary campaign, and that the Palestinians will - in the long term - have to settle for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip alone. Hamas leaders may think this is not a just solution, but they have been stating for almost a decade that this is the most they can reasonably expect. Indeed, this has been the consensus in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for decades.
The first Hamas leader to publicly outline this position was Musa Abu Marzuq, then head of Hamas’s political bureau in 1993.
However, it was most clearly outlined in a letter from the late spiritual leader of Hamas, Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, from prison in spring 1994. He stated that he would accept a 30-year truce (hudna) with Israel it troops withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, dismantled Israel’s illegal settlements and released Palestinian political prisoners. He repeated this position consistently since, and clarified that he was willing to accept an open-ended ceasefire.
He stated the same position in an interview with CNN in 1997 (although this article seems to contain errors about the nature of the truce Yassin has proposed). In May 2002, Yassin said that “I guarantee that suicide bombings inside Israel will come to an end” if Israel stops attacking Palestinian civilians.
Indeed, Hamas has so far observed a unilateral ceasefire since early 2005, despite constant Israeli provocations, and is widely credited with being the most disciplined faction in this respect.
'Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas spokesman in Gaza and arguably the key political leader in the organisation before his assassination, said in an interview in January 1998: “We have announced our readiness for a truce in which there would be a withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza in return for a ceasefire.”
The late senior Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab (former deputy to Yassin, Hamas’s observer to the PLO and its representative to the National and Islamic Forces, the coordination body for the intifada) went furthest in seemingly accepting a peace settlement based on a return to the 1967 borders.
In 1997, he said in an interview: “If US President Bill Clinton said this conflict should be solved by dividing the land, he could succeed. Although it is not fair, most Palestinians will accept it.”
In April 2002, he declared, on behalf of Hamas, his acceptance of the Saudi-initiated Arab peace proposal, which called for full recognition of Israel in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab land. He said Hamas will “cease all military activities” if Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders, and spoke of his desire to have a “good neighborhood with Israelis.” Israel rejected the proposal, and Abu Shanab was assassinated months later.
Hamas has often offered ceasefires or an end to suicide bombings on the condition of the end of the occupation. In one recent example from July 2002, a day before a scheduled Hamas re-publicisation of this offer, Israel assassinated one of its founding members - a move that has been credited to Israeli attempts to forestall Hamas’s moves to a ceasefire, and thus preserve the state of war that allows it to justify the perpetuation of the occupation. Since then, Israel has assassinated several key Hamas figures, including Yassin in his wheelchair.
Hamas leaders have opposed according legitimacy to Israel prior to a stated Israeli intention to withdraw from the occupied territories. This may seem unwise to some, good tactics to others. However, for the media to portray a Palestinian faction that has gained widespread support in the occupied territories, particularly since its strong election triumph in January 2006, as unwilling to compromise with Israel, would be to invite an unwillingness on Israel’s part to compromise with the Palestinians.
One Hamas leader has posed the apt question: “Is Palestine destroying Israel, or is Israel destroying Palestine?”
Official statements
Since their rise to power, Hamas officials have made the following statements, according to newswires:
23 May 2006 – Ismail Haniya told Israel’s Ha’Aretz newspaper that the Islamist movement would institute a long-term ceasefire, or hudna, if Israel pulled out of the whole of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
“If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, peace will prevail and we will implement a hudna for many years,” Haniya said during an interview in Gaza.
“Our government is prepared to maintain a long-term ceasefire with Israel.”
12 May 2006 – In a speech to commemorate the 58th anniversary of the Palestinian nakbah – when over 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homeland – Ismail Haniya said:
“The government will not make concessions on the principles and rights of the Palestinians, but that does not mean we are calling for war or that we want disorder in the region … If Israel recognises a Palestinian state, accepts the right of return of refugees and the release of prisoners, that will be our position [i.e. they would recognise Israel]”.
26 April 2006 - A statement posted on Hamas’s website said it was willing to end the Middle East conflict. Deputy Prime Minister Nasseridin al-Shaer was quoted as saying:
“We are not afraid to pay a political price for it [peace], but this must be done in coordination collectively with all Arab countries and on a legal basis.”
25 April 2006 - Prime Minister Ismail Haniya condemned the triple bombings in Dahab, Egypt:
“We condemn this odious crime which has taken place in Dahab and which undermines the national security of Egypt … We stand by Egypt and in solidarity with the Egyptian people.”
21 April 2006 – Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said in an interview with the German TV channel ZDF:
“Israel must withdraw from territories occupied since 1967. This includes the capital of Jerusalem.”
Other conditions include “the right of refugees to return as well as the dismantlement of Jewish settlements, the destruction of the separation barrier and the release of all [Palestinian] detainees … If and only if Israel does this, then Hamas, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims will be ready for true peace.”
In effect, Hamas is only asking for Israel to comply with international law before it will recognise it, a reasonable proposition.
20 April 2006 - The Hamas-led government welcomed comments made by French President Jacques Chirac in support of continuing foreign aid to the Palestinians. Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told AFP:
“We believe this is a good position that reflects a positive trend … We hope this vision will translate into a change in Europe’s position of cutting aid to the Palestinian people and political relations with the government … We appreciate this position from France, which has always had positive relations with regard to the Palestinian cause.”
19 April 2006 - Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya spoke to Romano Prodi to congratulate him on winning the Italian elections. He told Prodi that Hamas was committed “to calm and stability in the region and the implementation of a just peace which would put an end to the Israeli occupation and restore the Palestinian people’s rights.”
18 April 2006 - Prime Minister Ismail Haniya told reporters: “Peace and security in the region will flow from the end of the occupation and the recovery of all our rights.”
11 April 2006 - In response to an EU decision to suspend aid payments to the Palestinian people, Ismail Haniyeh said:
“We can see that this decision as a green light for Israel to continue its aggressions and as a collective punishment on the Palestinian people over its democratic choice … The Palestinian government reiterates its commitment to the rights and principles of the Palestinian people. We will show our ability to stand up to these efforts to isolate the Palestinian people, both regionally and internationally.”
7 April 2006 - According to Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Hamas has offered Israel an unofficial truce as long as it is reciprocated.
5 April 2006 - Prime Minister Ismail Haniya authorised government ministers to have contact with Israel in order to ease Palestinian daily life:
“Nothing stops ministers from having contacts with the Israelis to deal with matters connected to daily life, business and the economy …
“When it comes to political negotiations, that poses a problem because they subscribe to a political vision. We are waiting on what is proposed to us, we will study it and decide on our position …
“What is important is that the next Israeli government takes courageous decisions about issues which concern the rights of our people and not imposed unilateral measures …”
4 April 2006 - According to a letter from Foreign Minister Mahmud al-Zahar to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the new Hamas government said:
“We look forward to living in peace and security, as all countries in the world, and that our people enjoy freedom and independence side-by-side with all our neighbours in this holy place …
“Our government is serious about working with the quartet …
“Our government is ready for serious discussions and to work with the United Nations and with the entire international community to strengthen security, sovereignty, peace and independence in our region based on just resolutions.”
31 March 2006 - In an interview in the Guardian, Prime Minister Ismail Haniya wrote:
“We in Hamas are ready for peace and want to put an end to bloodshed. We have been observing a unilateral truce for more than a year without reciprocity from the Israeli side …
“The message from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to the world powers is this: talk to us no more about recognising Israel’s ‘right to exist’ or ending resistance until you obtain a commitment from the Israelis to withdraw from our land and recognise our rights …
“Though we are the victims, we offer our hands in peace, but only a peace that is based on justice …”
18 June 2007 - Haniya said: "We want the creation of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, that is Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The PLO is in charge of negotiations on this point. We have agreed to respect all the past agreements signed by the PA."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2105236,00.html
The question of recognition
It is well known that Hamas has refused to recognise Israel’s right to exist. This, however, does not mean that Hamas does not recognise that Israel exists. Hamas is only questioning its right to exist because Israel was created on Palestinian land cleansed of its indigenous population. It is therefore illogical to expect the Palestinians to recognise that this is “right,” or that Israel had a “right” to do this. As renwoened Argentinean-Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim told the Austrian weekly magazine Profil:
“We must recognise that the creation of Israel entailed the expulsion of Palestinians. So we cannot ask the Palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist. (But) we can ask them to recognise that Israel does exist.”
The PLO’s recognition of Israel’s “right to exist in peace and security” in 1993 is widely seen by Palestinians as a catastrophic blunder, because Israel never reciprocated by recognising that the Palestinians have a right to exist or form a state of their own.
Were Israel to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories, allow the Palestinians to create their own viable, sovereign, independent state, and allow refugees the option of choosing whether to return, all in line with international law, then Hamas could, in principle, recognise Israel.
As it stands, Israel is doing all it can on the ground, through its occupation, settlement activity and barrier construction, to deny the possibility of a viable, sovereign, independent Palestinian state. It thus cannot be said that Israel has accepted Palestine’s right to exist. Surely recognition should be mutual.
Renouncing violence
Hamas says Palestinians have an inherent right of self-defence against Israeli aggression. This is an entirely reasonable proposition. Such a right exists independently of what is stated in the UN Charter, which only applies to States. Every individual has a right to defend themselves from violent attack. The Palestinians are no different.
The Palestinian people’s right of self-defence is inherent in their right to self-determination. Article 7 of the UN’s 1974 Definition of Aggression provides that:
“Nothing in this Definition, and in particular article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right … particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration” [emphasis added].
Israeli soldiers occupy Palestinian towns, villages and cities, illegally colonise Palestinian land, demolish homes, carry out arbitrary arrests and shoot-to-kill policies, including extrajudicial executions, on a regular basis. These facts are well documented. No human being or people can accept this. Retaliation is inevitable.
However, in low-scale warfare in defence of the right of self-determination, certain standards should be respected. In this respect, Hamas must not attack civilians. Under international humanitarian law, only attacks on military targets are legitimate during warfare.
Israeli civilians must not be attacked (unless they are armed, in which case they are no longer civilians and can be targeted). Hamas has, however, declared a ceasefire, and has not engaged in military operations against Israeli targets since early 2005. Israel, on the other hand, has not reciprocated.
The issue is not renouncing violence. It is respecting the laws of war. It is interesting to note that when the PLO applied to accede to the Geneva Conventions in June 1989, the US and Israel opposed it.
It would seem that, paradoxically, these countries are harming their own interests by keeping the PLO and other Palestinian resistance movements outside the realm of international law as it applies to both parties, including those seeking to liberate themselves from occupation as well as those who occupy and colonise others.
The obstacle to peace is not Hamas. It is Israel’s prolonged and belligerent occupation of Arab lands, which is approaching its fourth decade.