Hamas
Presents new Charter Accepting a Palestine Based
on 1967 Borders
May 02, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- Document aims to heal divisions within
Palestinian movement and ease peace process but
Netanhayu says: ‘Hamas is attempting to fool the
world’
By Patrick Wintour
Hamas
has unveiled a new political programme softening
its stance on Israel by accepting the idea of a
Palestinian state in territories occupied by
Israel in the six-day war of 1967.
The new document states the Islamist movement it
is not seeking war with the Jewish people – only
with Zionism that drives the occupation of
Palestine.
The new document also insists that Hamas is a
not a revolutionary force that seeks to
intervene in other countries, a commitment that
is likely to be welcomed by other states such as
Egypt.
The policy platform was announced by the head of
the movement’s political bureau, Khaled Meshal,
at a press conference in Doha. “Hamas advocates
the liberation of all of Palestine but is ready
to support the state on 1967 borders without
recognising Israel or ceding any rights,” he
said.
The move comes just two days before a White
House meeting between Donald Trump and Mahmoud
Abbas, whose Fatah movement remains at odds with
Hamas.
But according to diplomatic sources, the new
document has been in preparation for years and
has been the subject of intense debate between
the various Hamas factions in Gaza, in exile and
in prison.
Although it does not explicitly supplant the
previous charter of the founding fathers, seen
by many as racist, it is being described by
those seeking to help Hamas toward a more
peaceful path as the contemporary summary of
Hamas beliefs and aims.
Israel rejected the document before its full
publication, with a spokesman for the prime
minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “Hamas is
attempting to fool the world, but it will not
succeed.”
Ed Royce, the chair of the House foreign
relations committee, said: “Until Hamas
recognises Israel’s right to exist, its words
are meaningless. I will see to it that Hamas
remains designated a terrorist organisation as
long as it continues to launch rocket attacks
against Israeli civilians, remains an Iranian
proxy, and engages in other acts that threaten
the US and Israel.”
But some influential diplomatic figures will
seek to persuade Trump’s Middle East advisers
that the document at least shows there is the
potential for a peace settlement based on the
recent regional push led by Egypt. It may also
open the way for international investors to
start rebuilding basic services in Gaza, and end
the blockade.
In the biggest concession, the new document
states that Hamas “considers the establishment
of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian
state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the
lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the
refugees and the displaced to their homes from
which they were expelled, to be a formula of
national consensus”.
By implication, the document accepts that there
will be another state entity outside these
borders, even if it does not mention Israel.
Previously the movement’s leaders have given
verbal commitments to the more limited aim of a
Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip, but the aim has never been put formally
in writing.
Hamas, which wrested control of the Gaza Strip
in 2007 from the Ramallah-based Palestinian
Authority – controlled by Fatah. Since then, all
efforts since to reconcile the two Palestinian
factions have faltered.
The new Hamas document essentially brings the
two sides closer to the same negotiating
objective.
The policy statement asserts: “Hamas affirms
that its conflict is with the Zionist project
not with the Jews because of their religion.
Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews
because they are Jewish but wages a struggle
against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet,
it is the Zionists who constantly identify
Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial
project and illegal entity.”
Critics of Hamas will point out the document
rejects the Oslo accords, and asserts that
resistance for the liberation of Palestine will
remain “a legitimate right, a duty and an honour”,
adding “armed resistance is regarded as the
strategic choice for protecting the principles
and rights of the Palesinian people”.
No
Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is
Independent Media
|
The new charter also abandons past references
claiming Hamas is part of a pan-national Muslim
Brotherhood, to which it was closely linked when
formed.
This aspect of the statement could improve the
currently difficult relations with the Egyptian
government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi,
who as army chief overthrew his Islamist
predecessor, Mohamed Morsi, in 2013 and has
since led a bloody crackdown on the Brotherhood.
Hamas had been planning to present the charter
at the Intercontinental hotel in the Qatari
capital of Doha, but the hotel canceled,
prompting Hamas to rush to find an alternative
location, eventually holding the event at the
Doha Sheraton.
In advance of the publication, Netanyahu’s
office said: “Hamas’s document is a smokescreen.
We see Hamas continuing to invest all of its
resources not just in preparing for war with
Israel, but also in educating the children of
Gaza to want to destroy Israel.”
“The day Hamas stops digging tunnels and diverts
its resources to civilian infrastructure and
stop educating children to hate Israelis, that
would be real change,” the statement said.
Ismail Haniyeh, the Gaza-based deputy head of
Hamas’s political bureau, said at an event in
the Gaza Strip on Sunday that “the new document
will undermine neither our principles nor our
strategy. Jerusalem, the right of return,
Palestinian unity and the resistance forces are
fundamental principles. The changes relate to
regional developments, and suit the era.”
This article was first published by
The
Guardian -
Hamas Outlines its Vision for Palestine in the
21st Century
By
Dr Daud Abdullah
May 02,
2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- One hundred years of oppression have not
diminished or erased the Palestinian hope for
freedom. Throughout this year, 2017, they are
marking the 100th anniversary of the Balfour
Declaration, which started their tragedy. The
occasion is about the past, as well as the
future. And, it is in this context that the
Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas has launched
its new General Policies and Principles
Document.
When Hamas
issued its founding Charter in August 1988, the
occupied territories were in the grip of the
First Intifada (uprising). Both the content and
tone of its message was then largely one for its
followers and the “stone-throwing generation”
who had risen up against the occupation. Thirty
years on, things have changed drastically. The
occupation has become more inhumane while
transforming itself into a system of apartheid
rule. A new political framework is, therefore,
needed to give not just hope, but direction to
the Palestinian people as well.
Politics
aside, Hamas is plainly positioning itself to
occupy the moral high-ground left vacant by
other national forces. The leadership which
brokered the ill-fated Oslo Accords two decades
ago still remains in power; albeit now
discredited and mistrusted by large sections of
Palestinian society. Despite their best efforts,
they seem incapable of shaking off the image of
a self-serving and corrupt elite.
Rightfully, Palestinians yearn for an all
embracing and inclusive leadership; one that
honours their sacrifices, respects their will
and pursues their legitimate rights. With this
in mind Hamas has carefully framed its General
Policies Document in a language that resonates
with Palestinians of all political and religious
persuasions. While affirming a willingness to
recognise a Palestinian state within the 1967
borders, Hamas, nonetheless, remains committed
to its declared objective of a free Palestine,
from Naqurra in the north to Rashrash in the
south, and from the Jordan River in the east to
the Mediterranean Sea in the west.
No doubt,
some may argue that this new document has been
long overdue. The truth, however, is that Hamas
has over the years shown a capacity to critique
its political positions and explore options that
were not mentioned in its founding Charter as
long as they did not compromise national
interests. Hence, while still in prison Sheikh
Ahmad Yassin proposed a long-term cessation of
hostilities (hudnah) with Israel for
the first time in 1994. In 1997 he told the Associated
Press that Hamas would accept a ten-year
truce if Israel would withdraw its troops and
settlers from all of the West Bank and Gaza.
Similarly,
Dr Abdel Aziz Rantissi, another founding leader
of the movement, told Reuters on
27 January 2004: “We accept a state in the West
Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
We propose a 10-year truce in return for
[Israeli] withdrawal and the establishment of a
state.” Two years later, in May 2006, these very
ideas were adopted in the document that came to
be known as the National Conciliation Document
of the Palestinian prisoners. It was signed by
representatives of the four largest Palestinian
factions: Marwan Barghouthi of Fatah, Sheikh Abdel Khaliq
Al-Natsche of Hamas, Sheikh Bassam Al-Saadi of
Islamic Jihad and Abdel Rahim Malouh of the PFLP.
Many of
the points embodied in the Prisoners Document
such as the acceptance of a state within the
1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital, the
right of return and the right to resist are all
now asserted in Hamas’ new General Policies
Document. Having signed up to the Prisoners
Document Hamas has, furthermore, demonstrated a
willingness to be part of a national project
that secures the rights of all Palestinians and
not only its supporters.
Since the
Lebanese-based Al-Mayadeen TV station
published a leaked draft copy of the new
document cynics have wasted no time searching
for contradictions and compromises. Apart from
the issue of a state within the 1967 borders,
they point to the fact that whereas the founding
Charter identified the movement as an extension
of the Muslim Brotherhood this new General
Policies Document makes no such mention. Nor
does it deny its ideological links with the
Brotherhood. As for any supposed organisational
connection and the co-ordination of political
strategies within a unified leadership, that was
never the case. Indeed, what Hamas does in its
new General Policies Document is to identify
itself as a national liberation movement.
Hamas of
2017 is a significantly different body from what
existed in the late 20th century. Today, for
better or worse, it finds itself in a position
where it has to administer the Gaza Strip and
provide jobs and social services for its two
million people. Its regional and international
standing has also changed. Hence it has to
respond to all the challenges that these entail.
Foremost among these is to maintain adherence to
its strategic political positions such as the
right to resist, non-recognition of Israel and
adherence to the liberation of Mandatory
Palestine. At the same time, it has to avoid
being crippled by ideological dogma.
The new
General Policies Document is an attempt to do
just this. Its completion shows an honesty to
acknowledge and correct errors. For example, in
1988 the founding Charter framed the conflict in
these words; “Our struggle against the Jews is
very great and very serious.” This is manifestly
wrong. The conflict has always been one between
the Palestinian people and the Zionist
colonisers who conquered Palestine and now
occupy it.
Hamas’
founding Charter was written in the last quarter
of the 20th century. Politics is never static
anywhere; and it certainly is not in Palestine.
Conditions change rapidly. The wider region is
itself in a state of continuous flux where
alliances are formed and broken. By taking this
audacious step to write this new General
Policies and Principles Document Hamas is laying
out its vision for Palestine in the
21st century. One that would guide and enable
the Palestinian people to liberate their land
and enjoy the security and freedom from
oppression and discrimination that they richly
deserve. It is a vision and framework to create
opportunities that would ultimately lead to the
control and development of their natural
resources, as well as realise their full human
potential.
Is there
any justification to deny them these fundamental
human rights?
This
article was first published by
MEMO
-
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.