In the presentation I gave at the Georgetown conference Friday afternoon, one of the main issues I was exploring was the notable shift the Hamas leadership had made, sometime between the 1996 PA legislative elections, which they boycotted, and the 2006 elections, in which they participated– as it turned out, extremely successfully.
The context for them taking the decision to participate was, I think, that of the Sharon government’s 2004-05 decision-and-implementation of the plan to undertake a unilateral (i.e. un-negotiated) pullout of all settlers and troops from Gaza. Also, the horrendous wave of decapitation attacks to which Hamas was subjected in early 2004: Yassin, Rantisi, etc…
The un-negotiated nature of the Israeli pullout was viewed by Hamas people as a great victory for the Hamas strategy of multi-faceted resistance to Israeli occupation as opposed to the strategy Fateh has adopted for many years now, of just about total reliance on negotiations while dismantling all the instruments of resistance, whether mass-popular or military.
In 2005, in addition, Hamas participated along with Fateh and most of the other much smaller Palestinian movements in a joint “unilateral” cessation of hostilities in the Gaza theater, that was designed above all to allow Sharon to implement his pullout plan without the IDF troops being subjected to Palestinian fire as they exited.
The 2005 unilateral ceasefire was also an essential precondition for the holding of orderly PA legislative elections in January 2006, since it’s just about impossible to hold elections that have any political legitimacy in a situation where there are ongoing hostilities.
Anyway, one of the issues I was probing in my Georgetown presentation, and that I’m reflecting on a lot more right now, was the “depth” if you like of the commitment that Hamas has displayed from 2005 on to the PA project. And that commitment continues until now, despite the huge suffering that Israel, the US, and all the US’s hangers-on in the world inflicted on Hamas, its supporters, and the Palestinian people as a whole as a result of Hamas’s victory in the 2006 elections.
The depth of that continuing commitment is what is remarkable to me. (Though it has seldom if ever been remarked upon by most people in the west.)
The PA project, remember, is the child of the Oslo Accord, which was an agreement between Yasser Arafat’s PLO and the Government of Israel. “Buying in” to the PA project in any way therefore implies strong buy-in to the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel. It involves strong buy-in to the goal of a two-state outcome, which has always been the most that any Palestinian could expect to achieve from the Oslo process.
Participating in the 2006 PA legislative elections therefore signified an evident break with Hamas’s longstanding refusal to buy in to the two-state project in any meaningful way.
But now, the PA project looks increasingly, to Palestinians both inside and outside the OPTs, as much worse than a failure: a catastrophe. Yet Hamas’s people continue to express their commitment to it.
My judgment is that Hamas, unlike Fateh, has a still-intact Plan B to fall back on once they judge that the whole PA project has irrevocably failed. Not that it is an easy Plan B. But as we have seen, religious people find it easier to bear suffering on earth than most people who do not have that strong faith as their guiding light and their help in times of distress.
But the continuing commitment they have to the PA– and, also, by clear implication, to the survival of Israel– is still something worth a lot more exploring.
8 thoughts on “More on Hamas and the PA”
Comments are closed.
Hamas’ attitude towards the PLO is spelt out unambiguously in its covenant:
“Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies.
That is why, with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization – and what it can develop into – and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.
“Who will be adverse to the religion of Abraham, but he whose mind is infatuated? (The Cow – verse 130).
The day The Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies.”
I wonder … if given a choice between an Islamic State run by Hamas and continuation of the current status quo, which one would the West Bank Palestinians choose, in your opinion?
The un-negotiated nature of the Israeli pullout was viewed by Hamas people as a great victory for the Hamas strategy of multi-faceted resistance to Israeli occupation as opposed to the strategy Fateh has adopted for many years now, of just about total reliance on negotiations while dismantling all the instruments of resistance, whether mass-popular or military.
I think that is a very compact statement of he difference between Hamas and Fateh : Hamas is interested in a Palestinian state and Fateh is interested in ‘negotiating’ with US/Israel.
Hamas’ interest is Palestine. The US/Israel is utterly uninterested in Palestine and keeps asking Hamas about Israel… “say my name and acknowledge me as master” is what it keeps demanding.
Hamas wants Palestine to exist. Clearly Palestine and the Palestinians are under the boot heel of US/Israel. Clearly Palestine constitutes the whole of what interests Hamas.
Does Israel admit the right of Palestine to exist? Stop with this “does Hamas recognize the right of Israel to exist” already.
There is an alternative that doesn’t involve violence or capitulation, a third way: intensive, sustained, committed nonviolence. That would do the trick right now for the Palestinians.
There is an alternative that doesn’t involve violence or capitulation, a third way: intensive, sustained, committed nonviolence. That would do the trick right now for the Palestinians.
It is not at all clear, eppie, that non-violence would work. Palestinians, very rational, very experienced in the matter seem to have concluded that it would not.
They are not, after all dealing with Britain in the 1930s, a distant, divided society with no real sense of ownership over India. Nor is the Israeli army largely formed of Palestinians, officered by foreigners with a few units of Israeli troops to vary the mix. Nor do the Palestinians constitute the overwhelimng majority of the population.
Palestinian experience, see Gaza in January, is that the IDF is just as happy killing unarmed people as other wise. And has no compunction in maassacring unarmed non-violent groups of children or refugees.
Non-violence as a tactic is something Palestine’s friends abroad should practise- in boycotts, for example.
Obama stresses US partnership with Islam
In fact, Mr Obama said…”America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”
Turkey Wants U.S. ‘Balance’
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey is a man of brisk, borderline brusque, manner and he does not mince his words: “Hamas must be represented at the negotiating table. Only then can you get a solution.”
Who knows… maybe the US policy toward the Palestinians can yet be rationalized. There are 8,000,000 million Israelis… if you count them all twice. There are 3,000,000,000 Muslims worldwide… if you count most of them.
Certainly Hamas must be present at the negotiating table. But that can’t happen until they formally recognize Israel. That has to happen first. Otherwise there’s simply no legal basis for negotiations. The ball’s in Hamas’ court. They are now the one and only remaining obstacle to peace. It’s up to them. As long as they continue to try to portray themselves as the victims rather than the aggressors, their situation will not change.
I know it’s difficult for people to admit that they were wrong and to change their ways. But global opinion is united on this issue, and it’s not going to change. Only Hamas can take the steps necessary for peace.
Of course Israel must be present at the negotiating table, but that can’t happen until they formally recognize Palestine. That has to happen first. Otherwise there’s simply no legal basis for negotiations. The ball’s in Israel’s court. They are now the one and only remaining obstacle to peace. It’s up to them. As long as they continue to try to portray themselves as the victims rather than the aggressors, their situation will not change.
I know it’s difficult for people to admit that they were wrong and to change their ways. But global opinion is united on this issue, and it’s not going to change. Only Israel can take the steps necessary for peace.