Hamas: The History of the Islamic Opposition Movement in Palestine

By Ahmad J. Rashad

Islam, Palestine and politics, the most pervasive issues in contemporary Middle Eastern society, have congealed throughout the region, including the Israeli-occupied territories, into populist movements. Curiously, however, this Islamic trend remains the least understood, or perhaps most willfully misunderstood, phenomenon of current Middle East history.

The diversity of these populist groups has been obscured by wrapping them all within the awe-inspiring, fear-invoking banner of "fundamentalism." Journalists, scholars and politicians have attached such adjectives to these groups as "radical," "terrorist," "militant," "extremist," and "fanatic." These attempts to classify rigidly what is evolving and changing rapidly in the 1990s divert attention from serious questions, such as:

What distinguishes Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood from Lebanon's Hezbollah? How does Hassan Al-Turabi's outlook in Sudan differ from Rachid Al-Ghannouchi's in Tunisia? Who decides whether a group is engaged in terrorist activity or in legitimate military operations?

Such questions are seldom posed in the media, and even more rarely answered. In light of such an information vacuum, how does one fairly evaluate the Islamists, especially those from Palestine with whose fate the peace talks now are inextricably linked?

Israel's expulsion of over 400 Palestinian Muslims, allegedly because they are leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, represents a litmus test. The expellees are the cream of Palestinian Islam—scholars, businessmen, journalists, teachers, ulama, and students. They demonstrate that Islamists are neither irrational nor educationally or intellectually deficient. Yet, since their ideologies are essentially unclear, they instill apprehension among observers of the region. Who are these Palestinian Islamists, and how did they evolve?

Prior to the existence of Hamas or its military wing, Kata-ib Izzidin Qassam (the Izzidin Qassam Brigade, named after a prominent Islamist who fought the British during the 1936-39 uprising), there was the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood, established by Hassan Al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, adopted the Palestinian cause, aiding it via petitions, demonstrations and fund-raising.

The Brotherhood opened its first official office in Jerusalem on Oct. 26, 1945. By 1947, it had branches throughout Palestine and boasted a membership of nearly 20,000. When war broke out in 1948, many Brotherhood volunteers joined the fighting. They sought to remain active after the cease-fire, but since Jordan occupied the West Bank while Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian chapters of the Brotherhood were isolated from each other. Thus, the period 1948-1967 was one of minimal activity and support.

After the 1967 war, Palestinian adherents became loosely affiliated with the Jordanian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. The group abstained from politics throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, concentrating on moral and social issues such as attacks on corruption, administration of awqaf (trusts) and organizing community projects. Many Palestinians nevertheless were suspicious, particularly since this was the period of increasing rebellion against the occupation, and of Israeli attempts to divide and infiltrate the Palestinian movement.

The Brotherhood knew it could not challenge the PLO's position, especially with Fatah's impressive military training camps and operations. Furthermore, the Brotherhood was more concerned with social conservatism than with national liberation. Its leaders held that prior to military confrontation, Palestinian society must have a firm moral base. Brotherhood speakers gave first priority to moral degeneration, which they felt must be halted before political struggle could be effective.

Only in the mid-1980s did the Brotherhood assume an increasingly political dimension, ultimately in the form of Hamas, the Arabic acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement (IRM).

In 1987, Hamas issued leaflets decrying the use by Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, of intimidation, drugs and sex to induce Palestinian youth to become collaborators. The first communique to use the name Hamas appeared in February 1988. Hamas subsequently published its charter stating: "The Islamic Resistance Movement is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood chapter in Palestine. The Brotherhood is an international organization. . . [that] professes a comprehensive understanding . . . of the Islamic precepts in all aspects of life." Hamas, characterized by an egalitarian message and daring attacks, and without the stigma of corruption attached in the popular mind to many PLO backers, gained increasing support.

Peace Process Seen as Ploy

In addition to frequent handbills, Hamas began to publish a newsletter. First entitled Hamas, the publication was renamed Al Thabat (perseverance) and it dealt with socio-political issues and current events. The Middle East peace talks, hailed by the West as a ground-breaking event in October 1991, was seen by Hamas as a Zionist ploy to buy time. Prior to the meeting in Madrid, Hamas stated in its newsletter: "Our enemy does not rush toward the peace that some among us desire. Rather, the peace he wants is, in actuality, submission or resignation to the status quo."

Hamas believes that all the land of Palestine is Muslim. Jews and Christians are free to live there, but in an Islamic state. Positive Hamas views toward Christians in Palestine have received negligible coverage. Israeli historian Clinton Bailey, for example, has written that Hamas resents the Palestinian Christian elite's affluence. Hamas handbills, however, reveal a different attitude:

Communique No. 49: Some malicious circulars had been issued in Hamas' name; yet the group denounced them and reiterated its position as a representative of Christian and Muslim Palestinians, quoting the Qur'anic verse: "And nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, 'we are Christians': Because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant."

Communique No.57: Hamas stressed the unity among the Christian and Muslim communities of Palestine, and that the two groups would work as one to combat the aggressor.

Communique No. 65: Hamas extended the hand of gratitude to leaders of the Christian community that offered condolences for the martyrs killed at the Dome of the Rock massacre.

Special Communique: Hamas expressed anger and disgust, as well as a commitment to defend Christian rights, at the occupation of a Christian Orthodox church, and the subsequent violence against the priests who opposed the illegal act.

7he Islamic Resistance Movement 's Charter, Article 31: "Hamas' understanding of Islam dictates that each deserving entity is due its just reward. Additionally, imposing on the rights of others is deemed reprehensible and, therefore, prohibited. This position, regarding Christians and others, is based on the Qur'anic verse: 'Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: For Allah loves those who are just."'

The killings of Israeli border policeman Sgt. Nissim Toledano and of other Israeli military personnel have been described by the Israeli press as terrorist operations. Hamas refutes this charge, maintaining that such planned actions are strictly against legitimate military targets and that Palestinians have the right to fight the forces of military occupation. For example, Hamas members cite United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 2649, which "affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of people under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal. " Because Israel remains in violation of innumerable United Nations resolutions, Hamas feels that international law has been disregarded in the case of Palestinian affairs. Hamas therefore vows to maintain pressure on Israel and its military forces.

Hamas believes its rejection of the U. S. sponsored peace talks motivated the U.S. State Department's decision to place Hamas on the list of terrorist organizations. The Islamist, in a Feb. 4 communique, stated that "[the decision] defies logic, and [undermines] the individual's and the people's right to express their ideological and political outlook freely . . . The majority of the Palestinian population has expressed its profuse opposition to the current negotiations. Does this mean that the American move has placed [all op our people in the 'terrorist' category?"

The communique asked why the U.S. did not categorize the Jewish extremist groups opposing the peace talks as terrorists. The recent expulsions of the 400 alleged Hamas and Islamic Jihad supporters only fueled Islamist anger, not only in Palestine but throughout the Middle East.

This is because the expulsions clearly violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, the United Nations Charter and U.N. resolutions. The lack of due process in these cases, where none of the expellees has been charged with any illegal act, signals a shift in Israeli tactics. The New York Times quoted Israeli Prime Minister Rabin to the effect that his February "agreement with the United States . . . had preserved his right to deport hundreds more people in the future."

Thus many are convinced that the Israeli government and its sympathizers in the media and in the State Department have launched a deliberate campaign to discredit Hamas and marginalize sympathy for the deportees. Nor, as members of a group opposed to Israeli occupation, are Hamas supporters surprised at being demonized for that role. They maintain, however, that so long as Palestinians live under military occupation, they have the right to attack military targets.

It is a position that few in the Middle East—Muslim or Christian, "fundamentalist" or secularist—would contest.

Nor will thoughtful Americans who are ; aware of their own history. Just over 200 years ago, when Americans were fighting for their pwn freedom, their British opponents professed outrage against American guerrilla tactics.

His Majesty's officials spared neither ink, words nor bullets in seeking to defame and suppress patriots demanding only their "natural rights" to govern themselves in their own land, calling them seditionists, rebels and, yes, terrorists. Then, as now, however, those fighting for their own freedom in the land of their birth enjoyed popular support, at home and abroad. They persisted, and they won.