Hamas 2.0

Reading List

What to Read on the Middle East Peace Process

Steven A. Cook

An annotated Foreign Affairs syllabus on the Middle East peace process.

Letter From

Letter From Gaza: Hamas the Opportunist

Thanassis Cambanis

When faced with an economic blockade or diplomatic isolation, Hamas has leveraged its position into either greater control over Gaza or greater political influence beyond its boundaries. Such a policy of opportunism has allowed Hamas to outmaneuver policymakers in Israel and the United States.

But how symbolic is the launching of hundreds of Qassam rockets? They might be not a militarily effective weapon, but they’re definitely more than 'symbols.'

David W. comments on

Hamas 2.0

17 Comments Join

For decades, Western decision-makers have viewed Hamas as a terrorist organization that seeks to destroy the state of Israel and thus will never accept a territorial compromise based on a two-state solution.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently reiterated that assessment in a July 14, 2009, speech in Tel Aviv. Unfortunately, it also forms the basis of U.S. President Barack Obama's new approach to Middle East peacemaking. In his Cairo address, Obama refrained from labeling Hamas a "terrorist organization," but he urged Hamas to reform itself. "To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations," he declared, "Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist." The message was clear: if Hamas wants to be part of a political solution to the conflict, it has to adapt to political benchmarks set by Israel, the United States, and the Middle East Quartet.

The perception of Hamas as an organization intrinsically incapable of compromise has driven Western policy for more than 20 years and remains one of the most influential dogmas in Middle East diplomacy. Western observers justify their belief that any rapprochement with Hamas would be futile by pointing to its history of terrorist attacks and the movement's supposedly inflexible ideology. They bolster their argument by referring to the Hamas charter, the group's 1988 founding manifesto, which outlines a militant doctrine aimed at "liberating the land of Palestine" by force and invokes such anti-Semitic tracts as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

However, such critics fail to grasp the transformation currently taking place within Hamas. Today, the charter has ceased to play a significant role in the group's ideology. As early as 1990, Hamas began to distance itself from the document, which has since fallen into neglect. Although Hamas has not officially renounced the charter, no references to it can be found in any of the group's recent statements. Moreover, Hamas leaders, such as Mahmoud Ahmad al-Ramahi, the secretary-general of the Palestinian Legislative Council, have recently begun downplaying the charter's relevance by clarifying that "it should not be confused with the Holy Koran."

In turn, Western decision-makers should rethink their approach. Rather than basing political judgments on largely outdated proclamations, they should study recent Hamas policies and the movement's performance on the ground.

In 2006, Hamas began to evolve from a dogmatic organization located outside the political system into a functioning opposition party within the Palestinian body politic. This shift was followed by a transformation from a radical opposition party into the majority party of the Palestinian territories and, after the 2006 elections, the de facto governing party of Gaza. In a surprisingly short time, Hamas has largely abandoned religious rhetoric and calls for the violent liberation of Palestine, in favor of the increasingly secular and pragmatic task of state building.

Following its decision to participate in Palestinian elections in January 2006, Hamas conducted a thorough review of its political platform for the first time. Its campaign focused not on violent resistance but on promises of judicial reform, improved education and housing, as well as better health and environmental policies. The movement won a landslide victory in what was considered a democratic and fair election.

Hamas later released a "cabinet platform," in which Ismail Haniyeh, Gaza's current prime minister, detailed the movement's principles as ruling party. The document marked Hamas' transition from a radical armed movement to an aspiring governing party. It does not mention armed resistance or anti-Israeli agitation. Instead, it focuses primarily on state building and economic policies, even identifying "international investment as a basic pillar in sustainable development."

In June 2007, the collapse of the Palestinian unity government and the subsequent coup d'etat in Gaza effectively established Hamas as the governing authority there. Hamas' ruthless ousting of Fatah forces put it in an unprecedented position: for the first time in the history of the modern Middle East, a Sunni religious fundamentalist organization had gained control over a substantial stretch of territory with a homogenous population.

Confronted with the task of governing one-third of the Palestinian population, Hamas immediately engaged in state-building activities, such as collecting taxes, controlling borders, and reforming security forces. Faced with an orchestrated strike of civil servants, Hamas leaders did not dissolve government structures in order to establish "traditional Islamic" forms of governance, opting instead to staff Palestinian institutions in Gaza with loyal party activists. In doing so, they differed substantially from radical Salafi movements in Somalia or Taliban warlords in Afghanistan. Five years of Taliban rule resulted in the absence of a functioning central government, minimal formal economic activity, and only rudimentary administrative offices. In contrast to this premodern style of governance, Hamas adapted to existing institutions, established a strong monopoly on institutional power, and ruthlessly suppressed opposing Fatah activists, religious rivals from the Islamic Jihad movement, and criminal gangs.

Although Hamas is running a fairly efficient civil administration in Gaza, this should not conceal the more disturbing aspects of Hamas rule: the movement remains authoritarian, human rights violations are common, and freedom of expression has been significantly curtailed in Gaza.