Narrow by
Use this menu to filter your search results. Check boxes below to return search results related to any combination of issue and regional interest.
Stay Connected to Sada Subscribe Sada is published in English and Arabic and available as articles are published or in a weekly digest.
Enter name and address (All fields are required)
Select Delivery

Sada - Analysis

Hamas and the Peace Process: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?


Contrary to popular misconception, Hamas and its supporters have expressed pragmatism and openness toward a political solution with Israel. Khalid Mishal, the head of Hamas’ political wing, announced in an interview with Newsweek on October 14, 2010 that “there is a position and program that all Palestinians share. To accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital. With the right of return. And this state would have real sovereignty on the land and on the borders. And with no settlements.” Mishal added that Hamas would accept any agreement with the Israelis upon which the majority of Palestinians agreed, before going on to say that “the American administration should hear from us directly.”

Mishal’s positions are nothing new for Hamas, which has taken fairly pragmatic positions on such issues since winning a majority (74 out of 132 seats) in the Palestinian legislature in January 2006 and forming the tenth Palestinian government. Since this electoral victory, Hamas has sought to show its more politically pragmatic side, particularly its acceptance of a political solution to the Palestinian problem. The solution calls for the formation of a Palestinian state stretching from the 1967 border to the Jordan River. This view was set forth in the Palestinian Reconciliation Document (also called the Prisoners’ Document, an agreement among jailed activists from Hamas and other Palestinian factions, which was amended in June 2006). The movement has also announced on various occasions its willingness to halt armed resistance and establish a ten-year truce in exchange for a Palestinian state on the 1967 territories. 

Mishal’s statements, which coincided with the stalling of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as well as the resumption of reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah, sent two important messages, one to a domestic audience and the other to a foreign audience. The message to outsiders was clear enough—Hamas is a viable partner and its inclusion would not mean the end of negotiations—and was directed particularly at Europe, where several countries are increasingly inclined to speak directly with Hamas.

The Domestic Message: Hamas’ Pragmatism and Fatah’s Fear

Mishal’s statements were also intended to show Palestinians that Hamas is pragmatic and confident, while the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah are on the defensive. The contradictory PA and Fatah responses to his statements reflect Ramallah’s dire straits; negotiations with Israel are at a stalemate and Fatah is as weak as ever. Adnan al-Damiri, the official spokesman for the Palestinian security services, accused Hamas of seeking to “be a stand-in for the Palestinian leadership.” Meanwhile, Osama al-Kawasimi, the media spokesman for Fatah, welcomed Mishal’s statements, saying that they showed “a complete compatibility with the political positions adopted by the Palestinian leadership in 1988” and that they would make “the Palestinian partnership more realistic.”

Hamas’ efforts to demonstrate pragmatism and openness towards at least some international parties are a constant source of irritation for the PA. During the last few years, Hamas has shown a higher degree of perseverance and political maneuverability than many expected. Recently, Hamas has begun to break down the political embargo that isolated it internationally. It demonstrated its ability to control the security situation in the Gaza Strip and manage security agreements with the Israeli side, including a truce with Israel reached through Egyptian mediation. 

For its part, Fatah fears that it will lose its preeminent position should international parties open up to Hamas. The strategy of late President Yasser Arafat and Fatah since the launch of the Oslo negotiations in 1993 has relied on contrasting their own moderation with Hamas’ hardline positions and tendency towards violence. President Mahmoud Abbas has been following the same strategy since 2005, particularly since the intra-Palestinian rift emerged in mid-2007.

While Hamas’ control over the Gaza Strip and the failure of negotiations to produce any Israeli concessions have weakened Abbas’s position, Fatah-Hamas reconciliation could bolster his role at home and abroad, while supporting moderate members within Hamas. After all, in the National Accord, Hamas agreed not to oppose the Palestinian president’s conduct of direct negotiations with Israel, and Hamas could reiterate this point in a future agreement. 

Attitudes of Hamas’ Supporters

Hamas’ supporters also have more pragmatic attitudes toward peace than many imagine. Polls conducted by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in the years before and after the 2007 rift show that Hamas followers were not relentlessly pro-violence, contrary to the popular misconception. 

A majority of Hamas supporters described themselves as being broadly in favor of the peace process (55 percent on average in the polls conducted from March 2006 to December 2008, compared to 86 percent of Fatah supporters). Moreover, in a March 2006 survey conducted in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 70 percent of Hamas supporters and 84 percent of Fatah supporters also backed full reconciliation between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples if a Palestinian state were established and recognized by Israel. Paradoxically, according to an October 2010 poll, a larger percentage of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip describe themselves as supportive of the peace process (69 percent), compared to only 58 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank. 

Looking at the various options that Hamas and Fatah partisans could accept as a starting point for a unified Palestinian national project, polls show that majorities in both camps support a political solution based on the formation of a Palestinian state on the territories occupied in June 1967. Seventy-six percent of Hamas supporters and virtually all Fatah supporters (96 percent) concur that the goal of the Palestinian people is to create an independent Palestinian state on all of the territories occupied in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital. Fatah and Hamas supporters also agree on the right of return for refugees and the release of all prisoners, as guaranteed by the UN according to a June 2006 poll. The same poll showed that a narrow majority of Hamas supporters (56 percent) and the overwhelming majority of Fatah supporters (86 percent) are in favor of building a national consensus based on international and Arab resolutions, as laid out in the Prisoners’ Document. 
What these data show is that Hamas’ support base has been shifting towards wanting to achieve a peace that secures Palestinians’ most basic rights as stipulated in UN resolutions—at least until the rift of 2007 and the Israeli war on Gaza. Hamas has repeatedly stated that it will respect the attitudes of its supporters and those of the broader Palestinian public in any future settlement. Perhaps Hamas’ supporters are more cynical now, after several years of a rift with Fatah, isolation in Gaza, and repression in the West Bank. But Mishal’s statements show that Hamas leaders are still prepared to show a pragmatic side, providing hope for the evolution of new perspectives within the organization.
Mahmoud Jaraba is the author of “Hamas: Tentative March toward Peace” (Ramallah: Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, 2010). 


Comments (8)

  • Meir Litvak
    The article ignores contradictory statements in Arabic by numerous Hamas leaders about the continued struggle until the destruction of Israel. Those who speak of the 67 borders add that it does not mean peace or recognition of Israel, but only temporary truce, Hudna, that will be abandoned once the Palestinians are strong.
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel
  • Abdullah
    Meir Litval doesn't seem to realize that if one compares Hamas' position and seriously takes the rhetoric in speeches of Israeli leaders into consideration the Jewish state wouldn't have any legitimacy.
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel
  • imad
    No solution to the conflict until Israel recognizes the Nakba of the Palestinian people as the Germans did after the Holocaust, otherwise power will be the arbitrator in the region. It is not just 1967 land but it is the continuous trial to wipe a country and identity of a people from the map and history. I might look radical, but this is how i see it. I join Abdullah, Lieberman called for the destruction of the High Dam in Egypt in 2002 and now he is the current Israeli foreign minster. Natanyaho is building settlements in West Bank and calls for peace at the same time. Therefore. any literature on Hamas as a pragmatic movement is irrelevant; Hamas might be forgotten and marginalized if Israel just make an acceptable peace settlement with Fatah and Abbas. It is not Hamas which is radical, it is the situation; the occupation and the blockade.
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel
  • Dominik Wach
    Mr. Litvak - you are right, that many Hamas leaders were talking about temporary Palestinian state within '67 borders and about 10-15 or 25 year hudna. But they were also talking about raising in peace new generations of Palestinians and Israelis who will be able to talk each other as a neighbors not enemies. Hamas is flexible and today is the only chance to achieve peace (but we have to remember that no one is ready for real peace in the Middle East).
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel
  • Leo Alkhatib
    The Two State Solution is dead and the Natenyahu government did the killing with their increasing settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. There is only one choice left for Israel to do and that is equal civil rights for Palestinians on the West Bank - Gaza, and full citizen ship. The Palestinians are going nowhere and there is no choice except for One State, Two Peoples!
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel
  • David
    Meir: See this interview with Mishal (the english translation) in a Jordanian Arabic-language newspaper. It doesnt seem to say anything different from what is in this article. And it doesnt say what you say it should say.
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel
  • Gibor
    There is no paradox ("Paradoxically, according to an October 2010 poll, a larger percentage of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip describe themselves as supportive of the peace process (69 percent), compared to only 58 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank.") We just have to remember that those in Gaza suffered far greater consequences from Hamas terror than those living in the West Bank.
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel
  • Tara L.
    Hamas's goal is and has always been to wipe out Israel, and kill all the Jews. In the Hamas charter, it says:

    "The day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of that Jews"

    Once they change that, then maybe you can say that they are interested in peace.
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel

Stay Connected

Subscribe to Sada:
Subscription Options Sada is published in English and Arabic and available as articles are published or in a weekly digest.
Select Delivery
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 P: 202.483.7600 F: 202.483.1840
Carnegie Middle East Center Emir Bechir Street, Lazarieh Tower Bldg. No. 2026 1210, 5th flr. Downtown Beirut P.O.Box 11-1061 Riad El Solh Lebanon P: +961 1 99 12 91 F: +961 1 99 15 91