Visiting lecture by Dr. Azzam Tamimi
Talk given on March 11,
2006 in
Title: "Hamas
and the Future of the
Dr. Azzam Tamimi is founder of the
---
Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting
me and I'm really delighted to be here again in
Actually the very reason I was asked to
write the book, when I was approached by the publisher in 2003, there were
already signs that Hamas was climbing up the ladder
of power and authority within Palestinian communities, not only inside
The story of Hamas
is a story of the Palestinian endurance, with what happened to them as a result
of the Zionist project. It is interesting to note that both Hamas
and Fatah, who are today rivals, and who have been
competing since the beginning of last year have clashed and killed one another,
both originally came from the same womb, the womb of the Islamic movement in
We saw afterwards that the Fatah movement started undergoing a transformation, becoming increasingly secular, opening the door for all sorts of ideological groups to come in from the left to the right, and, because of regional as well as international factors, it changed course from being Islamic to being nationalist and secular. That, on its own, would not have mattered much had it not been for Fatah's leadership decision in the early '70s, especially after the bitter experiences in Jordan, and then in Lebanon, to opt for what they called the "phased solution" or "phased liberation" of Palestine, which preferred the movement to accept a two-state solution, in other words recognizing that Israel had the right to exist, provided the Palestinians were enabled to create a state next to it.
And that was the moment when the Palestinians were split into two. On the one hand there were those who were loyal to the original dream, the dream that this is our land, and we cannot recognize the legitimacy of the creation of a Zionist state on any part of it. On the other hand, a group seeking to convince the Palestinians that you simply cannot do it, you have to accept that there is a world order, there is a balance of power which is not in our favour, and we would be lucky to be given a state next to the state of Israel, and therefore this should be the way forward.
Again, that, on its own, would not have ended the Fatah movement in the shape that we see it today, weakened, discredited, and on the brink of total break-up, had it not been for the fact that the assumption did not work, the assumption that was made originally that if we accept that Israel has the right to exist, we might end up with a state of our own. That didn't materialize, and because it did not materialize it backfired on them really heavily.
This was compounded by the fact that the leadership of Fatah, for reasons of expediency, for reasons of maintaining control -- this was the policy of Yasser Arafat in particular -- became increasingly corrupt. Yasser Arafat as a person wasn't corrupt himself, but he corrupted others as part of his strategy of maintaining control, of maintaining his authority. And that led to Fatah, as a body, being so corrupt, and once you lose accountability and transparency, and you allow corruption to spread at any level, that's the end of it, the whole thing becomes rotten and it cannot be maintained, kept together.
Now just to cut the story short, this is exactly what we ended up with when, toward the end of the '90s, it became clear that Oslo was not delivering, that the Peace Process started on the assumption that the Americans will use their leverage, the world will intervene on our behalf, because we have accepted Israel's right to exist, and will give us a state -- that didn't work. Then the second Intifada started in September 2000, anger started showing from within Fatah itself, Fatah no longer became one group, then when Yasser Arafat died, or disappeared from the scene altogether, Fatah no longer had a single leadership that could control it.
Now all the while -- as I explained in my book -- all the while, since 1988, less than a year following the birth of Hamas in December 1987, whenever Hamas came under pressure from the Israelis, whenever it was cracked down upon, whenever it was challenged by any misfortune, whether by the Israelis or by some of the Arab countries, as happened in Jordan -- and there are two chapters in the book about what happened in Jordan, leading to the expulsion of Hamas altogether -- every single one of these impediments, of these difficulties, actually strengthened Hamas rather than weakened it. The whole philosophy of the book is about this: how, whenever Hamas was hit on the head, it became stronger, more stubborn, more determined, more popular, and, in the eyes of an increasing number of Palestinians, more credible.
We saw exactly the same thing happen over
the past year. Since Hamas won in the election, the
world community, led by the United States of America, aided by the European
Union, decided that the winners in the election -- although there was
acknowledgement that the election was fair -- the winners would not be
recognized and dealt with until they accepted a certain set of conditions,
which became later on known as the conditions of the Quartet. Three conditions:
that Hamas had to recognize the state of
Now we know that that decision by the Americans was a very short-sighted decision because it did not really weaken Hamas. On the contrary, when Hamas said: "We don't give a damn about your conditions!", as far as the Palestinians were concerned, it became more heroic. Because what the Americans, or what the world community, wanted Hamas to do is concede in exactly the same way as Fatah before conceded, as if they were telling the Palestinians to test Hamas -- it was like a test. Had Hamas made any concessions, probably it would have lost rather than gained in the eyes of the Palestinians.
And then, in March, when Hamas formed its government, it invited Fatah,
and Mahmoud Abbas, to come
and join in. The
That didn't work and Hamas formed the government on its own, and then we saw a series of events unfold. Measures adopted on the ground by Fatah, like industrial strikes by Fatah-led trade unions here and there -- that didn't work. That didn't work primarily because the people did not really co-operate with the industrial strikes. They saw this as part of the plot against Hamas, and rather than collaborate and cripple their government, we saw civil society move -- this again is a very interesting phenomenon that is worthy of study on its own -- civil society institutions, NGOs, private individuals, move together in order to pressure the teachers, and especially the head teachers, because it was the head teachers who closed schools, to pressure them to open schools. And when the teachers refused to open schools, and refused to allow children into the schools, we saw alternative places opened for the children to be given their lessons for the period of the strike.
Actually it was a strike in which a lot of force was used, and intimidation. Schoolchildren arriving at school sometimes were fired at, not to kill or shoot or wound, but to intimidate. Teachers were threatened also, etc., that didn't work. Hamas, through its own efforts, managed to collect hundreds of millions of dollars from Arab and Muslim countries. They tried to smuggle the money in, sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they did not succeed. And we saw the Israelis and the forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas collaborate together in order to prevent the money from coming in, although it was greatly needed money. The people needed it.
But again the loss of funds was compensated by the phenomenon of social solidarity. Although social solidarity existed among the Palestinians for many years, we saw, during the past year, some innovative practices in order to compensate for the loss of revenues, of funds. People came together to help each other.
I think the very last ploy used in order to
force Hamas to comply was throwing it into a military
conflict. That was a very ugly chapter. Hamas tried,
to the best of its ability, to resist this, but eventually it had to decide whether
it wanted to protect its project or not. Its entire project had been under
threat and that's why we saw, unfortunately, clashes in which hundreds of
Palestinians were killed or wounded. And despite the fact that these were
unprecedented in the history of the Palestinians, it seems to me that they were
inevitable. What happened during those clashes and the outcome of those clashes
is what gave the way to
I think the propagandists miscalculated,
and they miscalculated miserably. They thought that because the Americans
promised money, and arms, and training, that they could take Hamas on. But Hamas actually was
quite prepared, the majority of the people stood by Hamas,
and there were several segments within Fatah that
stood aside and did not participate in the clashes, they did not want to be part
of that. There was a very interesting report, I was reading last night, you
might want to access if you wish, an article written by someone named
[Mohammad] Yaghi, a Palestinian, for the Washington
Institute. It's on the Washington Institute's homepage. And I think he is also
an editor at the Palestinian Al-Ayyam newspaper, but
he is a visiting fellow in
Now it's very interesting here to note that
the national unity government, which was opposed by the Americans in March and
in which Mahmoud Abbas did
not want to participate, suddenly became an international requirement in
August, immediately after the cease-fire between Hizbollah
and
And that showed the dilemma in which
Western leaders found themselves. It was a real dilemma. They imposed the
sanctions and the sanctions didn't work. According to the UN Human Rights
Council the situation in
But while there was talk about a national
unity government, it was a conditional national unity government, and still
that government had to comply with the conditions of the quartet. Now Mahmoud Abbas, again in a mood of
miscalculation, thought that probably Hamas would, at
one stage or another, comply with the conditions in exchange for participating.
So he wholeheartedly adopted the European and American view that the national
unity government had to be acceptable to the world community. And actually that
backfired because in the minds of many Palestinians, they started asking
questions: "Is it going to be a Palestinian government? A
sovereign government?
The Syrians tried hard -- I was in
And if you remember, Mahmoud Abbas met Khaled Mashal in front of the cabinet, but actually there was no real agreement, and they said they were going to continue the negotiations.
Whatever stage of the negotiations they
reached, they stumbled once again before the same obstacle, and that is whether
this government was going to be acceptable to
I think the turning point was the recent clashes in January and early February. It became very clear that Fatah was going to lose beyond salvage.
Now there are a number of theories as to how the Saudi Initiative came to be. There is one theory that the Saudis could not have done it without an American green light, because they are allies and they usually co-ordinate with the Americans, especially as Prince Bandar bin Sultan reports directly to President Bush, he's a very close friend to President Bush and the Bush family.
The second theory is that actually the
Saudis did not mean it, they just threw a word and appealed to the
Palestinians, to both sides, to stop killing each other and to talk, and well,
if you like, come here, in
A third theory is that the Saudis saw a golden opportunity in the predicament of the Palestinians and in the failure of the Egyptians and the Syrians to do something, because the Syrians and the Egyptians had been trying something. And then the Saudis thought that if they made use of this opportunity, they might be able to reduce the Iranian influence on the Palestinians -- because the Saudis believe that the Iranians have a lot of influence on Hamas. Which is totally false, it's untrue: the Iranians never really had an influence on Hamas. They have a lot of influence on Islamic jihad, but none whatsoever on Hamas. But nevertheless the Saudis were under the illusion that that influence existed and they felt that an opportunity was opened before them.
The meeting was held, and the Saudis took
it very seriously. Now some of the leaked reports from the meetings in
Actually Mahmoud Abbas, in December, was offered a much better deal by Hamas, which he turned down. The deal in
Now in
And as a result, in Mecca, it was accepted by both sides that Ismail Haniyeh would be the Prime Minister, Hamas would have nine portfolios occupied by its own members, Fatah would have six, and then three portfolios would go to independents: the Finance Ministry to Salam Fayyad, who is a person preferred by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Americans because he is a technocrat, he is a professional financial person; the Foreign Ministry would go to Ziad Abu Amr; and the Interior Ministry would go to an independent person who would be named by Hamas, but approved by Fatah. And until yesterday they hadn't yet agreed. We are waiting, in the coming hours, to see who will be the Interior Minister. All other things have been resolved, apart from naming the Interior Minister.
This is a sticking problem simply because it's not just the person, it's what will happen to the various security bodies that belong to Mahmoud Abbas, or to the Fatah organization. Because the Mecca agreement stipulates that there will be a national security council under which all security apparatuses will come, including the executive force that was formed by Hamas, including the preventive force, and the presidential guard, all the police and whatever militias that exist, all will be supervised by one national security council that is going to be under the authority of the Interior Minister.
Now it's very clear from what is seen --
but before that Hamas also, in my view -- that, since
the
It's very clear that more countries in the
world, including in Europe -- we had France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, there
are signs also from Italy and Spain -- that once the national unity government
is formed, these countries would immediately end the sanctions from their side.
There are some people who are skeptical. I attended the annual conference of
the Club de Monaco about a week ago or ten days ago (the Club de Monaco
consists of senior former diplomats and former politicians from around the
world) and there were some people who were skeptical that these countries, on
their own, can't bring the sanctions to an end. Because if the United States of
This is the situation. I think Hamas has emerged much stronger, much more authentic, much
more credible, and it is clear that no-one can deal with the Palestinian issue
nowadays without taking into consideration Hamas'
position. Even Tony Blair -- I'm trying to remember the date, it was on the
same day I was travelling actually to
The Israelis have not yet shown any signs of accepting the new reality, although in private discussions there are people who are interested in what Hamas proposed many years ago and continues to assert is its bottom line, the so-called "long-term truce", or the Hudna. Because if Hamas cannot recognize the right of Israel to exist, but at the same time, does recognize that there is a reality that it has to work with, the only way forward for Israel and Hamas to work together is actually through a long-term truce, or a Hudna. And that is something I discuss in my book in detail in a chapter and a half, nearly. The history as well as the dynamics of such a prospect, if it is ever given a chance to take place.
Now Khaled Mashal, in his article in the Guardian a couple weeks ago
-- and again, if you haven't read it, I urge you to, you can find it in the
Guardian, it's on the website -- gave another signal. He did not mention the Hudna, or the truce, but he mentioned, for the first time,
coming from such a high-ranking Hamas official, a
Palestinian state in the West Bank and
I think this is the general picture. Probably if I stop here, I can be reminded of points -- there are obviously points that I haven't covered.