Tonight, in the framework of Israel’s social protests– protests which were launched last year on July 14th (#J14) and have continued, smaller but in some ways more intensely, through this summer– in this context, a […]

{Foreword: As contrasted to most of my blogs, which are short form, informally written, and not fact-heavy, this piece is an 8,000 word research paper I wrote during my final year at Middlebury College, in 2010, for a seminar on Political Islam. The basic argument, as stated in the conclusion is “that Hamas’ Islamic roots, while offering important frameworks for mobilization, do not determine its policy. Just as votes for Hamas must be largely understood as protest votes, Hamas’ actions must be largely understood as political actions. While Hamas’ rhetoric has been and continues to be radical and violent, its actions, as analyzed through the lens of its participation in ceasefires and lulls, have not lined up with its most radical declarations, and it can thus be concluded that Hamas would find a way to Islamically justify virtually any political position it desired to take. Hamas’ guiding framework can thus be described as pragmatism portrayed as dogmatism.” I decided to post this paper for a few reasons: 1.  Because it is still a relevant- and I think under-understood- way of viewing Hamas and forming policies and opinions. 2. Because I now have a readership I did not have when I first wrote this paper and I want to share my work. 3. As proof that at least some of my opinions are based in study and research. :) So, this piece is probably 20 times longer than my usual pieces, so if you want to read it, maybe print, or save in a different window. If you try to read it as you’d read a blog, you will likely despair wicked quick}

Pragmatism or Dogmatism:

Hamas and the Dynamics of Ceasefire

What has led Hamas to abide by ceasefire with Israel in certain circumstances, and what can this teach us about Hamas, and about the ‘how’ of future engagement with the Islamic Resistance Movement?

By Moriel Rothman

Political Islam

Professor Quinn Mecham

Middlebury College

December 2010

Introduction: Is Hamas Primarily Dogmatic or Pragmatic?

“Hamas is an idea,” according to Israeli author Amos Oz, an idea that “grew out of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians.”[i] Oz, in his June 2010 article criticizing the Israeli government’s response to the Turkish Flotilla seeking to break Israel’s siege of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, went on to write that because Hamas is an idea, the notion that it could be forcibly defeated is misguided. Thus, the only way for Israel to deal with the threat Hamas poses is by negotiating with Hamas, either directly or, “more realistically,” following its integration into Fatah [with whom Oz recommends Israel negotiate a peace deal post haste]. Oz’s analysis of Hamas corresponds with a theory by two scholars of Islamism, Dale Eickelman and James Piscatori, which argues that Islamism, or political Islam, is in essence protest.[ii] It is an effective channel for the expression of grievances- or perceived grievances. A fundamental assumption of Eickelman and Piscatori’s argument, and of Oz’s, is that Islamist groups with nationalist goals -like Hamas- are ultimately rational actors, and that they are motivated more by politics than by faith, more by reason than by dogma.  Oz’s analysis paints Hamas not as a conduit for Palestinian Islamic fervor, but rather as a result of Palestinian political and social frustration. It is important to note that the designation “rational” in this context is not a value judgment: a political strategy based in massacre could be as rational as one based in dialogue and cooperation.[iii] In other words, the fact that Hamas’ tactics are despicable should not cloud an analysis of the extent to which the organization is pragmatic and flexible.

Oz’s argument, however, is by no means representative of the mainstream Israeli analysis of what Hamas is and how to deal with Hamas, and his article was attacked by another high-profile Israel writer, Ben Dror Yemini. Yemini, writing for the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv, challenged Oz’s basic premise that Hamas’ existence had any connection to Israeli action. “There is no greater lie than the assertion that Hamas was established because of Israel,” Yemini writes, “Hamas arose as part of a worldwide awakening of political Islam.”[iv] The implications of Yemini’s conclusion are clear, especially when juxtaposed with Oz’s argument: Hamas, as part of the “worldwide awakening” is fundamentally irrational, and its supporters are driven by religious dogma unconnected to Israeli action.