Thursday, Feb 05, 2009
Gulf News
Now that the guns have fallen silent and the dust is settling over Gaza, it is time to revisit the received wisdom in Israel, the United States and some European quarters that Hamas is a monolithic, Al Qaida-like organisation bent on Israel's destruction and that, therefore, Israel has no choice but to isolate Hamas and use overwhelming force to overcome it.
In fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
Far from being a monolith, there are multiple clashing viewpoints and narratives within Hamas.
Over the years, I have interviewed more than a dozen Hamas leaders inside and outside the Palestinian territories. Although, on the whole, Hamas's public rhetoric calls for the liberation of all historic Palestine, not only the territories occupied in 1967, a healthier debate occurs within.
Nuanced differences exist among Hamas's leaders, some of whom repeatedly have said they want a two-state solution.
In the last year, more and more Hamas moderates have called for tahdia (a minor truce) or hudna (a longer-term truce), which obviously implies some measure of recognition.
Hamas moderates, in effect, are justifying their policy shift by using Islamic terms. In Islamic history, hudnas sometimes develop into permanent truces.
Considered a hardliner, Khalid Mesha'al, the top Hamas leader and head of its political bureau based in Syria, acknowledged as much.
"We are realists," he said. And he acknowledged that there is "an entity called Israel."
Another senior Hamas leader, Gazi Hamad, went even further than Mesha'al, telling journalists last month that Hamas would be satisfied with ending Israeli control over the areas occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War - the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
My conversations with Hamas's rank and file suggest that the movement has evolved considerably since it unexpectedly won power in Gaza in free elections in 2006.
Before that, Hamas was not known for its bureaucrats. But that had to change.
"It is much more difficult to run a government than to oppose and resist Israeli occupation," a senior Hamas leader told me while on official business in Egypt in 2007.
Despite its wooden and reactionary rhetoric, Hamas is a rational actor - this is a conclusion reached by former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who served as Ariel Sharon's national security adviser and who certainly is not an Israeli peacenik.
Hamas has undergone a transformation "right under our very noses" by recognising that "its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future," Halevy wrote recently in Yedioth Ahronoth.
His verdict is that Hamas is now ready and willing to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state within the temporary borders of 1967.
If Hamas is so eager to accept a two-state solution, why doesn't it simply announce that it recognises Israel's existence and promise to negotiate a peace deal that allows the two countries to co-exist?
Apparently, Hamas's leaders believe that accepting Israel's presence is the last card in their arsenal. Why bargain it away before the talks even start? So what happens now? US President Barack Obama, saying he wants to "get engaged right away" in the issue, has already dispatched a special envoy, former Senator George Mitchell, to the Middle East to talk to "all the major parties involved."
But, although Mitchell made a stop in the West Bank, he did not venture into Gaza or meet with Hamas officials.
Is that wise? What if, instead of ignoring Hamas or, worse yet, seeking its overthrow, the United States and Europe engaged the fighter organisation, diplomatically and politically, and encouraged it to continue moderating its views?
So far, the strategy pursued by Israel and the Bush administration of isolating and militarily confronting Hamas has not appeared to weaken the organisation dramatically; if anything, it has strengthened hardliners and reinforced the culture of extremism and martyrdom.
There are huge differences between Hamas and Al Qaida, and a lot of bad blood. Hamas is a broad-based religious/nationalist resistance whose focus and violence is limited to Palestine/Israel, while Al Qaida is a transnational terrorist group that has carried out attacks worldwide.
Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Qaida's chiefs, have vehemently criticised Hamas for its willingness to play politics and negotiate a truce with Israel. Hamas's leaders have responded that they know what is good for their people.
Unlike Al Qaida, Hamas is not merely an armed militia but a viable social movement with an extensive social network and a large popular base.
If they won't engage Hamas, the US and Europe will never know if it can evolve into an open, tolerant and peaceful social movement.
More importantly, there can be no durable resolution of the conflict if Hamas is not consulted about peacemaking and if the Palestinians remain divided.
Like it or hate it, Hamas is the most powerful organisation in the Palestinian territories. Israel cannot wish it away.
Some of Obama's advisors are on record saying they favour dialogue with organisations such as Hamas. Some even believe that the president may feel the same way, although he has not said so.
If they are wrong, and Obama thinks that a "durable peace" can be achieved without talking to Hamas, he will be in for a rude awakening.
Fawaz A. Gerges is a professor of Middle Eastern studies and international affairs at Sarah Lawrence College.
Gulf News 2009. All rights reserved.
