You won’t read about this in the news, but Hamas was once the darling of Israel. It wasn’t that long ago, but western and pro-Israel commentators do not like to discuss this particular facet of history, nor are they inclined to admit how disastrous the Israeli-Hamas connection has turned out to be.
Between 1967 and 1984, the main resistance group in the occupied Territories was the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) . The PLO had a distinctly nationalist agenda, and its stated aim was the creation of an independent Palestine.
But the PLO was not the only party around. Other groups, dedicated to the resistance of Israeli occupation in varying degrees, cropped up too. Some were local, others were instigated from elsewhere. One such group that appeared was the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Like its parent in Egypt, the Palestinian MB subscribed to the Salafist strain of Sunni Islam. Its founders, Abdal Aziz al-Rantisi and Shaykh Ahmad al-Yasin, lost no time in in getting down to business; opening hospitals, schools, public kitchens and orphanages. This was Hamas in its early days. For much of its history, Hamas has been deeply invested in the alleviation of the suffering of the Palestinians.
Because the Palestinian MB was largely apolitical, Israel saw in this proto-Hamas an effective cure to the pernicious problem of the PLO’s violent resistance. During Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the Palestinian MB was given unprecedented space to build mosques and set up charitable institutions- the very same buildings that Israel is so busy destroying with its missiles today. Daniel Kurtzer, then U.S ambassador to Israel, argued in 2001 that the growth of Islamist movements in the Occupied Territories, principally Hamas, was achieved with the “tacit support of Israel” because “Israel perceived it to be better for people to turn toward religion rather than toward a nationalistic cause.” 1
Israel’s support for these Islamist movements, however, should not be seen as a benevolent gesture. The Israeli government has seldom expressed a constructive, much less sincere, desire to see an independent Palestinian state coming into existence. In promoting this outcome, Israel has often played the ‘divide-and-conquer’ card, as it did in Lebanon in the run up to the first Lebanon War, and still does in its present support of President Abbas in the West Bank against Hamas in Gaza.
Israeli manipulations went south when the Palestinian MB decided to forsake political quietism for a more active role in resisting the occupation. Poverty-stricken and fed-up with the status quo, the population centers in both Gaza and the West Bank embarked on a massive uprising in 1987, which Israeli armed forces brutally tried to quell. This first intifada served as a potent catalyst for the politicization of the Palestinian branch of the MB. Hamas was thus born.
The name Hamas is a clever play on words. It’s not only an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyah (Movement of Islamic resistance) 2, but also a proper word, meaning “courage” or “zeal”. Hamas, however, is only the political wing of the Palestinian MB. It’s armed wing is called the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Forces.
Much has been said about the Hamas Charter, which unequivocally calls for the complete dismantling of Israel. I would argue that the maximalist rhetoric of some Palestinian resistance movements are a direct response to the equally virulent expansionist aims of Zionism. Because Zionism proper has never really relinquished the dream of establishing a biblical Greater Israel, with territory that encompasses large swathes of Palestinian land- Palestinian groups simply have no incentive to surrender their maximalist ambitions. After all, it might well be the only thing keeping the resistance alive in the face of Israeli intransigence.
While Hamas has deliberately chosen to be vague on the borders it plans to liberate, its leadership has finessed this position by increasingly emphasizing the importance of Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders. And after winning a stunning election victory in 2006, Hamas has warmed to the idea of leaving the destiny of Palestine to popular referendum. This leaves open the possibility of a two-state solution, if the Palestinian people accept it.
This isn’t just wishful thinking. Despite its savage reputation, Hamas has shown itself to be fully capable of keeping its word, even to the extent of holding to a promised truce in the face of an unrelenting Israeli blockade on Gaza’s land, sea and air routes. This is acknowledged by Gideon Lichfield in his balanced article, Fighting to Preserve a Myth 3.
Hamas’ position on recognizing the Israeli state hinges on a relatively uncomplicated matter that had already been decided in the international arena- which is the complete withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. Hamas also insists that this must be part of a package of mutual recognition by the two states. When asked on whether Hamas is willing to accept Israel’s right to exist, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar candidly replied: “If Israel is ready to tell the people what is the official border, after this we are going to answer this question 4.”
This is clearly a case of a clash between two fundamentalisms. One one side is Zionism, while on the other side is the same religio-nationalistic ideology cultivated by Hamas. But the symmetry between Zionism and Hamas’ ideology is less than perfect. The demands of Jewish settlers whose very presence in the West Bank and previously Gaza has impeded, if not completely sabotaged, the peace process are non-negotiable 5. When the Palestinians were confronted by the inescapable reality of Israel’s existence, they effectively gave up 80% of their historic homeland 6. Jewish settlers, on the other hand, cannot back down on their so-called right to settle in all parts of biblical Israel without abandoning their entire religious outlook.
Fast forward to the present, and we find that Israel has not given up its expansionist policy. On the surface, it supports the two-state solution advocated by the Middle East Quartet, but takes concrete steps to undermine the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. Even as it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2004, blueprints for new settlements were being drawn up for the West Bank. A wall was built, allegedly to prevent terrorists entering Israel, but deliberately and provocatively placed within the Palestinian side of the border, as if by building so-called facts on the ground, Israel can simply wish away the numerous UN resolutions that calls for the return of all lands it has stolen.
Israel reserved its worst tools for Gaza. For being one of the first democratically-elected government in the Arab world, Hamas, along with the already impoverished population of Gaza, were subjected to a cruel regime of sanctions and blockades. Hamas did not renew its truce in 2008 precisely because Israels’ occupation had not completely ended, but had simply changed its character. Most commentators also agree that it was Israel who escalated the already tense atmosphere by deliberately entering Gaza two months before the truce ran out 7.
Abbas’ PLA may be enjoying an unprecendented jolly time, but Israel’s dismal record of favoring groups it perceives are useful to itself is not permanent. The pendulum may yet swing again.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
Insightful, though a tad biased. Are you Jewish?