Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

April 11, 2011 |  9 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Rethink Strategy, Engage Hamas

Manuela Paraipan: It is in the interest of the Occident to build relationships with key local players that have earned the support of their respective populations through an internationally sanctioned process.


Hamas has gone through a number of phases: paramilitary group, mass movement with a focus on social and development sustainability, political party, significant opposition group to Fatah and the governing body in the Gaza Strip.

In the 2006 legislative elections, it won the majority of votes and was thus legitimized by the population.

Hamas’ victory was in part a vote in favor of political diversity and for Hamas as an alternative representative body, and in part a vote against Fatah's long-term political dominance and what society perceived as poor performance and mismanagement.

Hamas ran under the change and reform slogan, and, perhaps surprisingly, the party actually had a comprehensive platform that addressed some of the socio-political and economic needs of the society. Irrespective of Hamas’ plans without a political solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the relationship between Israel and Palestine is that of occupier and occupied; hence, the Palestinian implementation maneuver margin has limitations dictated by Israel.

The alarming element, for some (mainly in the West), and what prompts almost immediate rejection, is Hamas’ Islamic feature. Hamas is proud of its Islamic aspect, but while it is keen to promote an Islamic ethic, in the political arena it is committed to respecting minority rights and non-Muslim communities. Hamas encourages people to look at the group and judge it on its actions in the socio-political and economic realm. This tactic, should they be able to practice it over an extended period, may be a major source of popular success. Nonetheless, if they fail, Palestinian society will sanction them through the democratic means available, such as the electoral process.

Each society has background characteristics that are reflected in its politics. In Palestine there is nationalistic and pluralistic motivation. An ultra conservative religious outlook is unlikely to develop; actually, it opposes the goal of the Palestinian cause and the heterogeneity of those that support it.

Hamas does not exist or act in a void; the indigenous population’s perspective must be considered, and then the regional context, the international network of relations and so on. Ultimately, these factors and others influence the party’s public platform.

As Dr. Aziz Dwaik, the Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council and a member of Hamas, said, “Islamists are sensitive to people’s demands, as they are the ones that elect them.”

Moreover, when internal divisions are transcended, and the long awaited two states solution is on its way to implementation, new political players may appear; thus, the principle of moderation is emphasized through constant competition alongside the presence of an aware civil society.

What does Hamas want?

Hamas’ political program has two main components: internal and foreign policy

Internally it seeks:

· Self-determination with its direct consequences: independence, sovereignty and a full sense of dignity

· Nation building centered around strong state institutions and bodies based on rule of law, transparency and efficiency

· Citizenry, civility and the principle of equality of all in front of law as well as progressive governance

In terms of foreign policy, Hamas is keen to forge relationships, trade treaties, and bilateral and multilateral agreements based on mutual respect and interest.

From an economic perspective, Hamas appears to seek a hybrid between a market based—attracting local, regional and international investment—and a state sustained economy. The latter should not be intrusive but should have a robust social component.

This model is created to respond to the challenges of a future Palestinian state, but marginally and within the limits imposed by the status quo, it already answers current needs.

To give an example, a labor force survey released by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) last month, highlighted how Hamas has responded to the issue of rising unemployment in the Occupied Territories. In Gaza around 13,000 new jobs were created under Hamas’ governance. This may seem a limited accomplishment, but it must be taken in context: between siege, ongoing blockade and internal division, Hamas did unexpectedly well.

It also indicates that Hamas’ economic program may indeed be viable should they have the opportunity to implement it fully and continue to address unemployment, poverty, the necessity of a viable infrastructure and assorted structural state weaknesses that are bound to appear once the large amounts of donor aid decrease.

Encouraging entrepreneurship, tourism, technology, agriculture, industry and a healthy financial and banking system through state and private sector partnership ensures steady growth and less dependency on the outside world for basic domestic needs.

Recommendation

Responsible engagement based on continuous scrutiny of Hamas’ actions

  1. Hamas was legitimized by the Palestinian people.
  2. By neglecting that, the West disrespects one of the democratic principles it seeks to promote and enforces a double standard.
  3. The party has shown an encouraging level of commitment towards gradual political, security and social maturity

Recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa demonstrate a need to recalibrate the West's strategy towards the region.

Manuela Paraipan has acted as media advisor to various parties in the Middle East. She was a media fellow and contributing editor to World Security Network, and has authored articles and policy studies on human rights in Lebanon, Middle East politics, global governance and economic advancement in underdeveloped countries. She is now the Executive Director of the Bucharest based Middle East Political and Economic Institute (MEPEI), non-profit, independent, organization. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of MEPEI.

This article was submitted for the atlantic-community.org's competition: "Empowering Women in International Relations." It coincides with the 10th Anniversary of UN resolution 1325 calling for an increased influence of women in all aspects of peace and security. The contest is sponsored by the U.S. Mission to NATO and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

You can read more submissions from the competition here.

  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Niklas  Anzinger

April 11, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
What does Hamas want?

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

This and other endless passages citing the "Protocols of the Elders of Ziyon", anti-Semitism and jihadi destructivism.

I would like to set a more argumentative tone (and the other debatants can criticise me for not doing so), but after hundreds of pamphlets in all kind of different shapes, this paper is far on the side of what the Islamist proganda is supposed to do.

With all due respect, but if we have learned anything from the last century, it is that anti-Semites are likely to put the darkest imaginations into action (if they are able to do so). Hamas does that and is for various other reasons (one would have to encounter all the given phrases presented here with the facts) no partner for even consideration of compliance at all. You can´t negotiate with one who wants to kill you. Are the other debatants not familiar with the agenda of Hamas? If so, I would be pleased to specify my arguments.
 
Unregistered User

April 11, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Political arena abounds of propaganda from all sides. However, there is change, perhaps evolution, in the path of many groups and political parties. Why not Hamas? Give them a proper chance and then judge.
 
Niklas  Anzinger

April 11, 2011

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
It is by no means fruitful to engage a terrorist group. It would mean giving them legitimation for their actions.
 
Manuela  Paraipan

April 12, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?




Mr. Niklas Anzinger, I appreciate your comment.

We start from different premises. You claim Hamas is a terrorist group, full stop. By adopting this line you close the door to any possible debate. It is your right and I respect it.

Now, I look at the phases Hamas went through. There is a transition process going on as we speak. When things are in motion neither can claim with 100% certainty that end result is going to be A or Z. It may be something in the middle. What we can and should do is acknowledge intent to change behaviour as well as nuances.

Hamas is in the process of establishing itself, first and foremost, as strong, progressive, political party. It may take (at least) a decade or so provided the circumstances are encouraging.

What do I mean by the latter? There are some immediate elements to consider (nota bene: not exclusively): a.) Palestinian reconciliation b.) Palestinian progressive and realistic vision towards their goal of having an independent state c.) Israeli - Palestinian political agreement (s) and eventually a political compromise that leads to two states for two people d.) Arab - Israeli relations e.) International community (and here there is diversity) dealings with both Palestinians as well as Israelis - as parties, groups, movements and then the relation from state to state f.) Take into account the recent uprisings all over the region, the impact on internal, national level, regional and then international g.) The West (again, I emphasize the diversity of what Occident is, and how it works) will have to make changes in its policies towards the region - perhaps choosing wisely with whom to engage, based on what principles and interests etc. h.) Where is Asia on all this? What about Russia? Turkey? Or the Muslim states?

The above elements and other are interdependent.

Going back to your post.

Did Hamas say some of those things? Yes, they did. What does that mean in practical terms? Little to nothing. Why? As political entity working in a mostly secular Palestinian arena and being keen to develop ties outside Palestine and the region, there is an ongoing trade-off, which leads to moderation in all aspects.

That opens the door to actual transformation. Basically, as political player, you have to adapt to the circumstances around you. Moreover, you adapt to the society that legitimizes you as political party.

Propaganda is disturbing (usually is there to create exaltation) and that may well be truism. All states and all party using it go 1 mile too far.

This type of wording will fade away when direct contacts and then relationships are established.

As an example. There is also aggressive and offensive tone coming from Israeli groups directed towards other Israeli movements. If you look at the division between the ultra-orthodox Israelis and the secular ones the rhetoric and sometimes the actions are far from being elegant. Again, what does it mean? In political arena such very distinct groups may find common interests to work on.

In the end, by working together temperance will become the norm, not the exception.

What I try to say is, look at the bigger picture. Nothing stays the same. Aside from emotions and rhetoric there are practical interests all actors take first and foremost into consideration. Keep an open mind.
 
Niklas  Anzinger

April 12, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Paraipan,

as you noted rightfully, I consider Hamas a terrorist group and my research tells me indeed that they are in the process of building ties with other terrorist groups (see weapon proliferation, Hamas/Hezbollah squad attempts, ties with Iran and many many others). Therefore, I don´t think you chose the right argument to convince me by comparing discussions in Israeli democracy with terrorist propaganda.

If discussions in Israeli democracy (and I think we both know that these are extremely critical) are equal to Islamist propganda, then Islamic lunacy and jihadism is equal to seeking statehood and independence. It is not a question of elegancy, Hamas stated clear and bulletproof that they Jews are their enemy and should be eliminated. Please note the research of Matthias Küntzel, Jeffrey Herf and other eminent historicians about the coincidences and continuities of Nazi propaganda and modern jihadism.

If we judge Hamas by our perceptions of rationality, we can make everything we want out of them. If we seek terrorists, then we can make terrorists out of them (which would be true for false reasons), if we seek potential partners, we can makes partners out of them (which will never work). Instead we should look at what they say they want and take that for granted as we would deal with a serious business partner. In this case, we would have to say we can´t do business because our goals are contradictory.

So, our readers should buy your argument that anti-Semite propaganda is same to Israeli democratic discussions (maybe among lunatics, but not in what is societal acceptable) and therefore there is a moral equivalence?

I offer the argument that Hamas do what they say and say what they do. You can look at these things at MEMRI, PMW and other translation institutes (if you just look at the English version, you make a typical Middle-Eastern-mistake) and the rhethoric never changed, neither did their actions (lately rocket firing).
 
Cody William Punter

April 12, 2011

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr Azinger,
You offer up very good reasons as to why Hamas should be considered a terrorist group, and indeed there are many people, especially in the US and Israel who would be inclined to agree with you. There are indeed many aspects of their policies especially with regards towards to Israel, that make it a dangerous political movement, with the potential for aggression against its neighbours. However, we must be careful in how we employ the term terrorist in describing an entire government. The term terrorist has in the last decade become an increasingly popular term in our lexicon. This has happened so much so, that describing an organisation as a terrorist or an act of aggression as one of terrorism, has been offered as a logical justification for discounting their legitimacy.

Indeed, as you yourself point out: "If we seek terrorists, then we can make terrorists out of them". However, we must be extremely careful as to how, and along what lines we draw conclusions in describing, a group as terrorist. You state that based on their open denial of the right of the Israeli people to exist, along with their ties to terrorist groups, Hamas should be considered a terrorist group. I do not wish to take up the comparison with Israel, as Ms Paraipan has done but would rather like to address the question of how your definition of Hamas as, a priori, a terrorist group should be translated into an accepted policy towards it.

For one, I do not think that characterising a democratically elected government as a terrorist organisation has neither any analytical nor explanatory value. There must be a distinction drawn somewhere as to what constitutes a terrorist organisation, and what constitutes a elected government with militaristic and expansionist elements in their policies. In this respect, it is worth looking at countries such as Pakistan and Iran, as they present two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, Pakistan has a democratically elected government and is considered a legitimate state by the international community. However, it is also responsible for allowing the spread of terrorist groups within its borders, much to the lament of the US in particular. On the other hand, there is Iran, which equally has a democratically elected government and which despite its violation of UN sanctions with regards to its nuclear programme is still considered a legitimate state. This is on top of the fact that the Iranian government, like Hamas, has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. (It could also be pointed out that, although there has been NO CERTAIN proof of ties with terrorist cells hostile to Israel, there is widespread and warranted suspicion that such ties - especially in the form of funding - exist.)

Both Pakistan and Iran, offer examples of countries, which based on their complicity in the spread of terrorism - and according to your argument with respect to Hamas, insofar as Iran is concerned- their aggressive rhetoric towards Israel, might be sufficient to consider them terrorist states. However, the knife's edge upon which stability in the region rests would suggest that refusing to accept the legitimacy of those governments based on their relationships with terrorist organisations would go against conventional reason. That is because antagonistic stances towards potentially hostile states are counter-productive, and only act to incite aggression rather than contain them.

As such, in dealing with Hamas, it would be beneficial to try and isolate those elements which are seen as aggressive and even, terroristic (if you should choose to use that word), from those elements which are productive and stabilising. Referring to platitudes, i.e. discounting Hamas based on its "anti-Semite propaganda" while contrasting them with "Israeli democratic discussions" is unproductive. The deadlock between Israel and Palestine is a dangerous one replete with contradictions, and choosing justify one country's democratic institutions while ignoring the other's on the premise of an increasingly overused buzzword is an exercise in futility with no prospect for progress. This is, I believe, the point which Ms. Paraipan was trying to make. It is actually beneficial that Hamas is a government with a hierarchy and responsible to its people and therefore possible to engage with on certain practical issues, whereas terrorist organisations are incredibly difficult to reason with, both because of their ultimate goals, and their nebulous hierarchies. Therefore, if there is to be any progress with Hamas, it must be through engagement, not derision.

Finally I would like to offer a point to ponder. If we are indeed to label Hamas as a terrorist group, rather than a legitimate government, how should the international community decide to act? To offer one example in recent memory, it was in the wake of 9/11 that the American government tried to use the veil of 'terrorism' as justification for invading Iraq. That there were links with Al-Qaeda is indeed likely, while the existence of WMDs and the intent to use them remains ever spurious. However based on the assumption that Iraq was a terrorist state, the US effectively used an bloated mandate to invade the country, and diffuse the threat. The long-term consequences of that invasion remain to be seen, although as of right now, it would appear that the US has been able to recover from its setbacks and achieve a degree of stability. However, to act against Hamas on the assumption of its links with terrorism and its anti-smetic rhetoric in the same way, would be both geo-politically inconceivable and catastrophic for all people living in the region.

 
Niklas  Anzinger

April 12, 2011

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Punter,

thanks for your well-written comment. Your argument is indeed a valid one, though I would object the assumption that military and aggressive elements within the Hamas movement are seperable. The objective of Hamas is clearly stated in the first few articles of their charta, they see themselves as an Islamic reawakening movement and they draw their conclusions for practical measures from the claim that a peaceful order is within the percpetion of Islamic world domination.

Though, that is an ideological point, I would buy some of your points how to "engage" Hamas practically. Nevertheless I think Hamas has to reach a point where reality trumps ideology and the occasion for that would be the delusion and formal and practical denouncement of Hamas in general.

How do we get there? I think, first there has to be a consensus that it is the goal to encounter Hamas-style Islamism as an ideology. In that sense, their activities have to be encountered militarily so the attempts to use terrorism as a tactic (you rightfully objected the use of this term) are not rational (terrorism is a rational tactic) and their ideology as a salvation prediction is not attractive to individuals. What we see currently as the Gaza Youth Movement may be an indicator that they young generation maybe able to make the elder generation responsible for their losses and misperceptions, and not foreign powers - nevertheless, it is just a beginning.

Besides that I see no way in which Hamas should be engaged by means that are usually considered to comply institutions, organizations or governments. For various reasons I am very likely to buy the argument that terrorists should not be engaged in any way and as long as terrorism as a tactic is used within certain wings of Hamas or linked to their activities this argument is valid from my perspective. Groups which use terror do not only feed from reputation for their cause but also from the fears, misperceptions and flawed logic of their apologists (e.g. in Western countries). We agree, that these groups should be isolated.

In addition, I see no indication that Hamas is likely to abandon their tactics and ideology, which is crucial for the argument of Ms. Paraipan. Maybe the readers or the author can help me out here (please with sources who are in no danger of falling for the double-speak phenomenon).
 
Manuela  Paraipan

April 12, 2011

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Punter I want to thank you for adding a new, interesting dimension to the dialogue.

Having said that, I will point out to Mr. Anzinger (and I hope the editors of this site have no problem with links to other websites) the analysis of Hamas made by the respected scholar Dr. Helena Cobban. She blogs at justworldnews.com

I will add a link (from there you can move further do the research) that provides an insight into Hamas' standing in political arena.

http://justworldnews.org/archives/004116.html

An excellent (recent) study written by Dr. Michael Broning ( FES - East Jerusalem) - The Politics of Change in Palestine: State-Building and Non-Violent Resistance

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=376357

Tags: | Middle East Peace | engagement | Hamas |
 
Niklas  Anzinger

April 12, 2011

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Ms. Paraipan,

everyone wants to sell their cause as moral and the others as the bad ones. The presented material supports Hamas´ view, that they are so good and humanitarian and in fact they are the victims of US/Israel aggression.

The numbers of the attempts caused by Hamas against Israeli civilians as well as their own people are vicious and I for myself could never consider Ma´an as a neutral medium as well as hundreds of "independent" NGO-workings among the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Ideological warfare, lawfare, NGO-ism and all that kind of stuff. After all isn´t it the question who to believe if there is no criterion of plausibility and factual reasoning (which I found to be the opposite)? Even if that was the case (from my perspective, Israeli reasoning was ever by far more plausible, note the recent Goldstone statements - none of this was new to those who believed the Israeli findings in the first place. First Hamas confirmed, then Goldstone confirmed the flaws in the international fact finding mission), it is not a very dangerous argument to buy that a souvereign nation with free press and military judiciary does more serious research then Islamist lunatics (even if course they try to portrait themselves as the victims).

As is see it, the readers have a lot of hard stuff to buy for considering your argument valid.

Is it a "war of political extermination by both Israel and the U.S" against Hamas and not Hamas that views the Jews as the ultimate evil and launches attacks against civilian targets and Jew-killings are celebrated? Well ..
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Anna  Przybyll
Anna Przybyll
"A wise old owl lived in an oak The more he..."

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?