Israel’s Dilemma in the Gaza Strip
For years, Israel has operated under the assumption that it would be preferable for Hamas to remain in power in Gaza, rather than a more radical faction. Lior Ackerman, a former senior ISA officer, believes it is time for a strategy shift. The full article will be published in the upcoming issue of Israel Defense Magazine
Lior Ackerman
| 27/07/2018
Hamas militant in Gaza (Photo: AP)
Once every few months or years, against the background of the Gaza Strip sector warming up and the scope of terrorist activities coming out of that sector in the direction of Israel increasing, a philosophical debate develops within the State of Israel. The issue is the necessity of keeping Hamas in power in the Gaza Strip vis-à-vis the other alternatives.
The last round of limited-scope fighting also rekindled the debate over this interesting issue. Occasionally, some voices argue it would be in Israel's best interest to preserve the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip in order to prevent, allegedly, the rise to power of elements that are much more evil. The proponents of this reasoning stress that preserving the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip makes it difficult for the Palestinian Authority to establish a unified front against the State of Israel. Consequently, it helps the representation of the State of Israel regarding the difficulty of allowing the establishment of a unified Palestinian state-like entity in the Gaza Strip and the Judea and Samaria district.
Is Hamas Good? What are the Alternatives?
Firstly, it is important that we understand what motivates Hamas, what the source of its power is and where it is going. Secondly, we should stress the reasons owing to which Hamas initiates a new surge of violence and terrorism against Israel once every few years.
Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, first published the Hamas Covenant, which presents the ideology and vision that provided the foundations for the establishment and operations of the movement, in 1988. We should familiarize ourselves with the contents of that Covenant to understand where Hamas is heading. The Covenant consists of 36 articles. It stresses the definition of the members of Hamas as "Fearing Allah and flying the flag of Jihad in the face of tyrants, for the salvation of the country." The eighth article of the Covenant states the primary goal of Hamas: "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its constitution, Jihad its path, and death for Allah its most sublime aspiration." This clarifies the only way the movement regards as appropriate for the accomplishment of its goals.
The Covenant makes it clear that Hamas is one of the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement and its position toward the State of Israel is unequivocal. The Land of Israel, which the Covenant refers to as "Falastin" (Palestine), is sacred for a number of reasons: "Palestine is the hub of the Earth and the junction of the continents and since the dawn of history has been an objective for the greedy." The Covenant regards the territory of Palestine as "Dar al Islam," namely a religious sanctuary, consecrated by the Muslim Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab and entrusted to the Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. No person or party has the authority to relinquish or give up any part of that territory. For this reason, every Muslim person, even women and slaves, are duty bound to embark on a holy war, Jihad, in order to reinstate the land to its rightful "owners," namely – Islam.
The Covenant repeatedly regards the settlement of Jews in the various parts of Palestine as an illegitimate invasion. For example, it states, "The Zionist invasion is a malicious incursion. It has no qualms about employing any method and using even the lowest and most despicable means to accomplish its goal, and the very existence of the State of Israel is a challenge to Muslims." In other words, Israel, owing to the fact that it is Jewish, challenges Islam and Muslims.
The entire Covenant represents an extreme anti-Semitic worldview, portraying the Jews as the party responsible for every negative historic event and for every war or conspiracy of the past – from the French Revolution through the First and Second World Wars to the establishment of the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The Goal – Establish an Islamic Caliphate
Hamas has no interest in the Palestinian state concept, nor does it deal with political issues or state borders. Hamas has only one objective – the establishment of a totalitarian, unified Islamist Caliphate over the entire Middle East, which is to operate strictly according to the principles of Islam. Accordingly, any attempt to attribute pragmatic, practical thinking to the members of Hamas or any hope of reaching agreements with them are both totally unsubstantiated fantasies.
Every escalation on the ground, be it an all-out war, a limited-scope operation, a border fence demonstration or the flying of flaming kites, is the result of measures initiated by the leaders and activists of Hamas. It stems from the political reality within Palestinian society on the one hand and from the long-term intentions of Hamas on the other hand.
In the last few years, the movement has found itself at an impasse, in the Gaza Strip and most definitely in the Judea and Samaria district, vis-à-vis the Palestinian Authority. Hamas currently faces a difficult economic situation owing to the absence of sufficient financing sources, a naval blockade, no cooperation and support from the Palestinian Authority and increasing internal unrest. Both Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority in the territories of Judea and Samaria have reached the same impasse.
During times like this, the leaders of Hamas engage in political maneuvers primarily, like changes of leadership or attempts to promote some form of unity between the Hamas leadership in Gaza and the Abu Mazen administration in Ramallah. Eventually, none of these moves ever seems to mature into a positive outcome. The interests are conflicting, the visions are separate, the ambition to remain in power transcends the need for a solution, and the fear of the future impedes any willingness to initiate moves in the present. Most of the world's countries, including the countries of the Middle East but excluding Turkey and Iran, have turned their backs on Hamas. The new US initiative expected from President Trump's administration is very threatening, mainly for Hamas and its rule in the Gaza Strip.
The leaders of Hamas know very well that in any situation of a diplomatic settlement they will be required to make numerous concessions that would distance them from the realization of their radical vision. This fear has led them, consistently, to a position where they reject any process toward a diplomatic solution and even initiate the opposite situation, namely extremism, heating up the sector and maintaining the confrontation with Israel.
Initiate and Act
Israel gains no benefit whatsoever from the fact that Hamas rules the Gaza Strip. Peace is not maintained, the potential for fighting increases every few years, the vision of Hamas has not changed and is not expected to change, and the threat remains as valid as ever. Additionally, Israel fails to win any points on the diplomatic arena, in its fight against Hamas.
Under these circumstances, the State of Israel must start initiating and acting. It should present new diplomatic ideas and processes and propose temporary, partial arrangements. At the same time, Israel should enhance its deterrence and aggravate the damage it inflicts on Hamas and the other terrorist organizations.
What we need is less responsiveness – more initiative; less containment of the conflict – and more severe and disproportionate responses. Fewer attempts to maintain peace – and more measures to guarantee long-term quiet.
***
The full article will be published in the upcoming issue of Israel Defense Magazine.
Lior Ackerman is a commentator and expert on intelligence, Islam and terrorism affairs. In the past, he served as Deputy Division Head in the Israel Security Agency
For years, Israel has operated under the assumption that it would be preferable for Hamas to remain in power in Gaza, rather than a more radical faction. Lior Ackerman, a former senior ISA officer, believes it is time for a strategy shift. The full article will be published in the upcoming issue of Israel Defense Magazine
Hamas militant in Gaza (Photo: AP)
Once every few months or years, against the background of the Gaza Strip sector warming up and the scope of terrorist activities coming out of that sector in the direction of Israel increasing, a philosophical debate develops within the State of Israel. The issue is the necessity of keeping Hamas in power in the Gaza Strip vis-à-vis the other alternatives.
The last round of limited-scope fighting also rekindled the debate over this interesting issue. Occasionally, some voices argue it would be in Israel's best interest to preserve the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip in order to prevent, allegedly, the rise to power of elements that are much more evil. The proponents of this reasoning stress that preserving the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip makes it difficult for the Palestinian Authority to establish a unified front against the State of Israel. Consequently, it helps the representation of the State of Israel regarding the difficulty of allowing the establishment of a unified Palestinian state-like entity in the Gaza Strip and the Judea and Samaria district.
Is Hamas Good? What are the Alternatives?
Firstly, it is important that we understand what motivates Hamas, what the source of its power is and where it is going. Secondly, we should stress the reasons owing to which Hamas initiates a new surge of violence and terrorism against Israel once every few years.
Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, first published the Hamas Covenant, which presents the ideology and vision that provided the foundations for the establishment and operations of the movement, in 1988. We should familiarize ourselves with the contents of that Covenant to understand where Hamas is heading. The Covenant consists of 36 articles. It stresses the definition of the members of Hamas as "Fearing Allah and flying the flag of Jihad in the face of tyrants, for the salvation of the country." The eighth article of the Covenant states the primary goal of Hamas: "Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its constitution, Jihad its path, and death for Allah its most sublime aspiration." This clarifies the only way the movement regards as appropriate for the accomplishment of its goals.
The Covenant makes it clear that Hamas is one of the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement and its position toward the State of Israel is unequivocal. The Land of Israel, which the Covenant refers to as "Falastin" (Palestine), is sacred for a number of reasons: "Palestine is the hub of the Earth and the junction of the continents and since the dawn of history has been an objective for the greedy." The Covenant regards the territory of Palestine as "Dar al Islam," namely a religious sanctuary, consecrated by the Muslim Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab and entrusted to the Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. No person or party has the authority to relinquish or give up any part of that territory. For this reason, every Muslim person, even women and slaves, are duty bound to embark on a holy war, Jihad, in order to reinstate the land to its rightful "owners," namely – Islam.
The Covenant repeatedly regards the settlement of Jews in the various parts of Palestine as an illegitimate invasion. For example, it states, "The Zionist invasion is a malicious incursion. It has no qualms about employing any method and using even the lowest and most despicable means to accomplish its goal, and the very existence of the State of Israel is a challenge to Muslims." In other words, Israel, owing to the fact that it is Jewish, challenges Islam and Muslims.
The entire Covenant represents an extreme anti-Semitic worldview, portraying the Jews as the party responsible for every negative historic event and for every war or conspiracy of the past – from the French Revolution through the First and Second World Wars to the establishment of the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The Goal – Establish an Islamic Caliphate
Hamas has no interest in the Palestinian state concept, nor does it deal with political issues or state borders. Hamas has only one objective – the establishment of a totalitarian, unified Islamist Caliphate over the entire Middle East, which is to operate strictly according to the principles of Islam. Accordingly, any attempt to attribute pragmatic, practical thinking to the members of Hamas or any hope of reaching agreements with them are both totally unsubstantiated fantasies.
Every escalation on the ground, be it an all-out war, a limited-scope operation, a border fence demonstration or the flying of flaming kites, is the result of measures initiated by the leaders and activists of Hamas. It stems from the political reality within Palestinian society on the one hand and from the long-term intentions of Hamas on the other hand.
In the last few years, the movement has found itself at an impasse, in the Gaza Strip and most definitely in the Judea and Samaria district, vis-à-vis the Palestinian Authority. Hamas currently faces a difficult economic situation owing to the absence of sufficient financing sources, a naval blockade, no cooperation and support from the Palestinian Authority and increasing internal unrest. Both Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority in the territories of Judea and Samaria have reached the same impasse.
During times like this, the leaders of Hamas engage in political maneuvers primarily, like changes of leadership or attempts to promote some form of unity between the Hamas leadership in Gaza and the Abu Mazen administration in Ramallah. Eventually, none of these moves ever seems to mature into a positive outcome. The interests are conflicting, the visions are separate, the ambition to remain in power transcends the need for a solution, and the fear of the future impedes any willingness to initiate moves in the present. Most of the world's countries, including the countries of the Middle East but excluding Turkey and Iran, have turned their backs on Hamas. The new US initiative expected from President Trump's administration is very threatening, mainly for Hamas and its rule in the Gaza Strip.
The leaders of Hamas know very well that in any situation of a diplomatic settlement they will be required to make numerous concessions that would distance them from the realization of their radical vision. This fear has led them, consistently, to a position where they reject any process toward a diplomatic solution and even initiate the opposite situation, namely extremism, heating up the sector and maintaining the confrontation with Israel.
Initiate and Act
Israel gains no benefit whatsoever from the fact that Hamas rules the Gaza Strip. Peace is not maintained, the potential for fighting increases every few years, the vision of Hamas has not changed and is not expected to change, and the threat remains as valid as ever. Additionally, Israel fails to win any points on the diplomatic arena, in its fight against Hamas.
Under these circumstances, the State of Israel must start initiating and acting. It should present new diplomatic ideas and processes and propose temporary, partial arrangements. At the same time, Israel should enhance its deterrence and aggravate the damage it inflicts on Hamas and the other terrorist organizations.
What we need is less responsiveness – more initiative; less containment of the conflict – and more severe and disproportionate responses. Fewer attempts to maintain peace – and more measures to guarantee long-term quiet.
***
The full article will be published in the upcoming issue of Israel Defense Magazine.
Lior Ackerman is a commentator and expert on intelligence, Islam and terrorism affairs. In the past, he served as Deputy Division Head in the Israel Security Agency
