Introduction
The occurrence of any change or transformation in the international system or in its elements and components directly or indirectly would trigger a domino effect on its sub-structures at the supra-regional and regional levels, political units and even groups and parties within political units.
Moreover, such a phenomenon will make changes in each of the levels and underlying layers of that system either in terms of their forms or content or both content and form. The 9/11 attack also occurred in one of the components of the international system and hierarchically affected its lower levels. Among these levels was the regional level of the Middle East, which was directly affected by the event of 9/11. These influences not only overshadowed the countries of the region, but also challenged the groups and parties in each of these countries. Therefore, it was natural that after 9/11, some countries, especially the United States and the Zionist regime would shift their focus to Palestine, especially the groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In addition to providing an excuse for the United States to launch attacks on groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad under the pretext of “combating terrorism,” the 9/11 incident opened up a “golden opportunity” for the Zionist regime to suppress the Palestinian people, especially the above-mentioned groups.
Since the late 1980s and after the Arafat-led PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) shifted its approach to fighting against the Zionist regime from an armed struggle to political struggle and diplomatic bargaining, other groups have emerged from the heart of Palestine which contrary to the PLO’s diplomatic approach adopted the strategy of armed struggle against the Zionist regime. Therefore, they separated from the PLO and its leaders and took a different strategy and policy intending to fulfil the Palestinian National Charter based on which the only way to stand up against the Zionist regime and save the Palestinian land was seen as pursuing an armed struggle and popular resistance.
The most important of these groups is the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and the Islamic Jihad Movement and to some extent the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In order to confront the Zionist regime, Hamas and Islamic Jihad choose the strategy of carrying out martyrdom operations which they pursued resolutely.
In general, with the developments that took place after 9/11 at the supra-regional, regional and domestic levels, Hamas and Islamic Jihad faced intense political, military, economic and even psychological pressures such that finally Hamas adopted a new policy and tactic in order to overcome the current unfavourable situation.
The Background to the Changing of Hamas Positions
In the world of politics, any phenomenon, transformation, adoption of a policy, strategy or position by political units and their subsystems, i.e. parties and groups, would be occurred due to a number of causes and backgrounds. The adoption of Hamas’ new policy and position to stop martyrdom operations has also been based on several variables and factors which may be considered at the supra-regional, regional and domestic levels. We will explain each of these variables.
A) Supra-Regional Variables
One of the factors that cause changes at the national and regional levels as well as within the groups and parties is the supra-regional pressures and variables.
The occurrence of any change or phenomenon at the international level or in the policies, strategies and positions that the political units adopt, especially the powerful units, will in a hierarchical manner influence and overshadow their subordinate systems at the national and regional levels. The incident of September 11, 2001, as the most important supra-regional event, affected the political units as well as the internal groups and parties of the countries such that the issue of terrorism and confronting it became a mainstream topic of conversation in all countries and political circles.
Although the issue of terroriĜ¸m has been raised before, yet after 9/11, it became a priority in discussions, programs and speeches of the officials of the counties who were friends and even enemies of the United States. Most countries took a stand against the 9/11 attack and strongly condemned it. The United States, which was looking for a pretext to intervene in other countries and regions, deployed its troops to the Middle East and condemned terrorism in various statements while urging all countries to join the international coalition against terrorism. In addition, the United States compiled and announced a list of terrorist groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. By publishing this list, the United States called on all countries to become united against these groups in various fields. In other words, in addition to carrying out an armed struggle against them, the countries should also exert economic pressure on those groups and through the mass media mobilize their public opinions against them. Accordingly, following the United States, the European Union for the first time issued an explicit statement in which it identified Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorist groups calling on the Palestinian National Authority to shut down their activities and arrest their members. The European countries went even further and called on Arafat to issue a statement in Arabic and announce the ending of the intifada.
“Arafat can no longer merge terrorism and politics,” Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy warned Arafat.
In other words, Arafat had to take a clear position regarding groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and practically confront them. Furthermore, various programs for condemning “terrorism and terrorist” were aired in the mass media of the countries, without mentioning the name of a specific group published by the United States. Hence, due to the software powers which mainly developed countries possessed, the anti-terrorist campaigns have been launched around the world, most of which have somehow ignored groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On the other hand, some media outlets whose agents were Zionists or at least had been politically or financially affiliated with them began planning to influence the domestic as well as international public opinion while introducing the above-mentioned groups as terrorists.
In general, after 9/11, under the pretext of combating terrorism, an international atmosphere was created in which, in addition to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad also were targeted by anti-terrorist measures making them face a lot of economic, political, military and psychological pressures at the supra-regional level. Because of the programs and news which mainly were made and disseminated by the Zionist regime media or its affiliated media, the minds of the people of most countries were exposed to misleading and false information about Hamas and Islamic Jihad and these groups were accused of committing savagery and using violence so much so that they became the exemplification of “terrorists and terrorism” in the public opinion.
In fact, the 9/11 event provided a “golden opportunity” for the United States, and especially the Zionist regime, to put taking practical measures against groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad on their agenda and those of other countries.
B) Regional Variables
As far as the regional level is concerned, the existence of multiple political units, which sometimes have contradictory attitudes, policies and stances, has always influenced the course of developments of Palestine.
At the beginning of the formation of the Zionist regime, the leading Arab states such as Pan-Arabist Egypt, Hashemite Jordan and Ba’athist Iraq decided to confront this regime under the slogans “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it” and “throw the Jews into the sea.”
Other moderate states, such as Saudi Arabia, also supported the slogans, though they did not take the same sharp stance. But the Arab countries gradually opened a new room of compromise with the Zionist regime. By signing the Camp David Accords, Egypt, which used to be a flagship for anti-regime struggles, took the first step in this regard, and then Jordan followed its footsteps as well. Other countries, albeit they did not sign a formal agreement with the Zionist regime, took a completely flexible position towards this regime. In general, the above-mentioned slogans were forgotten and the Arab countries continued supporting the Palestinian fighters only because of internal pressures and the public opinion of their societies. Today, the Arab authorities support the Palestinian fighters merely in their regional and international speeches and conferences and only make a series of statements and approve non-binding resolutions.
Under such circumstances, groups such as Hamas can never rely on the support of other Arab states in the region since if they formally establish ties with these groups or financially support them, the United States, especially in the event of the 9/11 attack, would consider them as terrorists or at least sponsors of terrorism thereby finding a pretext for striking a military attack or at least imposing various sanctions against them.
Deploying US troops to Afghanistan sounded the alarm for countries in the region as well as groups such as Hamas, as Iraq is now the second target of US military strikes.
Likewise, it is possible that the United States, following the so-called policy of “combating terrorism” which is a leverage of pressure in which many political units showed interest, would consider striking attacks and destroying groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a priority as well. However, in the world of politics and its developments, even the weakest probability should be taken into account.
C) Domestic Variables
One of the most important variables that led Hamas and its officials to decrease carrying out martyrdom operations was domestic variables which have two dimensions. In other words, Hamas was under physical and propaganda pressure, and psychological warfare was exerted by the top of the pyramid (Zionist regime) and the base of the pyramid (Palestinian National Authority).
1. The Pressures Exerted by the Zionist Regime on Palestinian Fighters
As the enemy of the Palestinians, especially the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the Zionist regime played the main role in exerting pressure on these groups as well as the others. At first, the Zionist regime targeted the lower members of these groups, but since it could not stop the attacks carried out by them, including Hamas, it decided to kill their leaders, so that by hitting the top of the pyramid, the lower members also will be weakened. The assassination of the various leaders of Palestinian groups, including Hamas, has long been part of the regime’s plans and tactics the employment of which can be seen in the assassination of Shaykh Ahmad Yasin, Abdul-Aziz Rantisi, Abu Muhammad Mustafa, Secretary-General of the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as well as two Hams leaders namely Abu Hanud and Abu Samhadaneh. On the other hand, the intensification of oppressing ordinary people who were fighting against this regime through the Al-Aqsa Intifada has been another plan of the Zionist regime officials in recent years. From the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000 until 2006, the Zionist regime forces killed about 1,500 Palestinians and injured nearly 30,000, while destroying the Palestinian farms and houses was taking place on a large scale.
As mentioned earlier at the supra-regional level, the event of 9/11, which shifted the world public opinion from other regional developments, including the crimes of the Zionist regime, to the US incidents, provided a golden opportunity for this regime to suppress and kill Palestinian people. Since then, while using this opportunity and under the pretext of the so-called fighting against the terrorist groups namely Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the Zionist regime has intensified its attacks on officials and members of these groups and ordinary people.
2. Pressures Exerted by the Palestinian National Authority on Palestinian Fighters
The actions of the Palestinian National Authority in the form of arresting and imprisoning the leaders and members of groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as closing their offices and confiscating their assets, have put double pressure on these groups, such that their scope of actions has become limited and they faced major obstacles.
Colonel Jibril Rajoub, the then head of the Palestinian National Authority’s security service in the West Bank, warned that the Palestinian National Authority would not tolerate political forces that had taken destructive and detrimental actions against Palestinian national interest, even if it requires a real confrontation. “Attacks carried out by some groups will help Ariel Sharon to weaken the Palestinian National Authority,” he said.
The Palestinian National Authority adopted a decisive approach against Palestinian combatant forces such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad because of the agreements it had signed and the pressures exerted by the Zionist regime and the United States. Thus, gradually the gap between the Palestinian fighters and the people and the leaders of the Palestinian National Authority was widened, and also the clashes and tensions between the two sides escalated. This escalation of the crisis has endangered the national unity and solidarity of the Palestinians against the Zionist regime and weakened the position of the Palestinians, especially the Palestinian National Authority, towards the Zionist regime which shifted the balance of power in favour of this regime.
Basically, during a struggle, the leaders have the power to change their scope of actions so that they may achieve their ideals and goals. Also, they can change their tactics according to different situations and conditions. The occurrence of a series of developments and events along with such changes would require the leaders and combatant groups to have flexibility in terms of tactics while following a fixed strategy.
Basically, no fighting group should rely solely on one or some types of tactics. Given that there are always changes in the supra-regional, regional, domestic levels and even intra-party or intra-group situation, taking that approach during the struggle either leads the combatant group to failure or at least, puts an obstacle to the fulfillment of its goals.
Considering the current situation in Palestine, especially the situation of groups such as Hamas on the one hand and the Palestinian National Authority on the other, as well as the comments of Hamas leaders, it becomes clear that adopting a policy of halting martyrdom operations, as mentioned before, is only a temporary tactic for dealing with the current situation. The combination of supra-regional and regional conditions, and in particular the internal situation of the occupied territories of Palestine, requires Hamas to adopt a new policy to break the existing stalemate. Therefore, in a statement, Hamas has announced that it will halt the operations within the 1948 Palestinian territories until further notice in order to maintain national unity and cohesion. This sentence explicitly shows the tactical nature of this action. In this statement, first, maintaining unity between Palestinian groups and leaders is considered as a more significant goal and interest than the personal or group interests, such that Hamas decided to take such a decision in the current situation and second, it has set a specific time limit for halting the operations. In other words, this is a temporary measure and hence the operations might be resumed at any time. As Hasan Yusuf, one of the leaders of Hamas, stated: “If Israel assassinates the Palestinians again and continues committing crimes against them, these operations will be resumed.” “This decision was made after examining the domestic and international conditions and variables, yet if the crimes of the Zionist regime are continued, Hamas will use its legitimate right to defend itself,” he added.
Likewise, making a comment in this regard the Minister of Communication of the Palestinian National Authority states, “Hamas and its leaders are well aware of the sensitivity of the current situation in Palestine, and the leadership of Hamas is acting wisely and is well aware of the interests of the country. The decisions made by Hamas stand for the cause of Palestine and the Palestinian people.”
“Hamas’ move does not mean that operations will be permanently stopped, but these operations should be carried out in proper time because the Palestinian issue has now entered a very serious phase in which there is a lot of international pressure on the people of Palestine. This interval will be an opportunity for the Palestinian National Authority and the reconciliation process so that peace will prevail, and if the Zionist regime does not seize this opportunity and continues its aggression, then it will be responsible for its actions,” said Emad Falluji.
Hamas had also defined a specific area, and that was the occupied territories of 1948, not the 1967 Palestinian territories. In other words, Hamas has stopped carrying out operations only within the 1948 occupied territories. That is why Israeli officials have called for a complete halt of operations at any time and place. It has been reported that “Israel in insisting that the anti-Zionist destructive operations inside Israel, as well as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, should be stopped.”
Hamas’ decision to suspend operations at the time brought numerous results for the Palestinian people, Palestinian fighters, and the Palestinian National Authority. These results can be divided into two categories:
- Interaction between the Palestinians
Due to the following results, this action improved the relations between the Palestinian combatant groups, the people and the officials and forces of the Palestinian National Authority:
1. Maintaining national unity and cohesion between the leaders of the various Palestinian combatant groups, between the people and the leaders of the combatant groups, between the Palestinian leaders and the leaders of the Palestinian National Authority, between the people and the Palestinian National Authority, and finally preventing the occurrence of a civil war.
2. Ending the tensions existed between the Palestinian combatant forces and the forces of the Palestinian National Authority.
3. Breaking the stalemate which was created because the international community and public opinion accused Palestinians of supporting terrorism.
4. Putting an end to the Zionist regime’s pressure on Hamas.
5. An opportunity to reinforce and work for releasing Hamas detainees and prisoners.
6. The shift of Palestinian diplomacy and the Arab world from adopting a defensive and passive stance to an aggressive one and taking the initiative.
Confronting the Zionist Regime
1. Ending the pressures exerted by the Palestinian National Authority on the Palestinian people and Hamas forces.
2. Ending the assassination of Hamas leaders which had been carried out by the Zionist regime.
3. Neutralizing the Zionist regime’s plans for creating disintegration and tension between the Palestinians, the Palestinian fighters and the forces of the Palestinian National Authority. Basically, since the Oslo Accords was signed, the Zionist regime has always tried to deal with the constant attacks of the Palestinian groups as well as the public Intifada. Therefore, by creating tensions and disagreements among them, it tried to increase and guarantee its security on the one hand and avoid spending money for dealing with the Palestinian threats on the other.
4. Making the Zionist regime face a fait accompli and taking precedence over this regime in the field of ending the violence. In other words, with this action, the Zionist regime was faced a fait accompli and was forced to react. This reaction was of two kinds: either it had to stop taking measures in the territories of 1967 and leave that place, or it had to continue its actions and aggressions, in which it would be condemned by the world public opinion and the international community.
5. Not allowing the Zionist regime to destroy the Palestinian National Authority. The Zionist regime has always used this pretext that if Arafat fails to calm the situation, it will destroy the whole organization. To some extent, Hamas managed to stop the Zionist regime from taking this opportunity. Although Hamas officials do not quite agree with the policies and practices of the Palestinian National Authority and Arafat, yet in general, and in these circumstances, the existence of the Palestinian National Authority is much more favourable than its absence.
Overall, the event of 9/11, while changing the supra-regional, regional, and political atmospheres, overshadowed Palestinian jihadist groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Therefore, Hamas had to adopt a new policy and tactic against the Zionist regime. On the other hand, the 9/11 event provided another opportunity for the Zionist regime such that it managed to pursue its expansionist policies more than ever. The Zionist regime, which always tries to take advantage of a situation, seized this opportunity and used the support and cooperation of the United States and the European Union.
Authority the power or right to give orders or make decisions More (Definitions, Synonyms, Translation)
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments