Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Hamas released its new political platform Saturday which will serve as the basis for the work of the new PA cabinet shortly to be announced.

Hamas’ Ismail Haniye pictured Saturday in Gaza, the day he released Hamas’ political platform (photo: Khalil Hamra/AP)

Different news sources are covering the story using different analyzes and emphases. But I’m most taken by Al Jazeera’s account which notes that it may offer a clever way of finessing the issue of whether or not Hamas plans to recognize Israel:

Hamas’s draft government programme has left the question of recognising Israel to the Palestinian people – leaving the door open for a possible referendum.

…The fifth article in the programme says: “The question of recognising Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people.”

Handing the issue over to a popular referendum would neatly disengage Hamas from being labelled as a hardline movement that refuses to recognise Israel on ideological grounds.

Before saying anything, we must note that the platform article doesn’t mention a Hamas plan for a referendum. The story doesn’t even say where the notion of a referendum came from (pretty sloppy journalism). Nevertheless, a referendum might be a logical outcome of this passage. If this is what Hamas’ leadership is thinking and they are serious about implementing it, then this would indicate some smart political strategizing on their part. If they truly are willing to renounce their own right to control the decision of recognizing Israel and cede that right to a democratic Palestinian referendum, that would show an ability to compromise on their formerly core principles. It shows an ability to use finesse instead of brute ideological force to resolve a thorny issue. And if true (again this must be tested by time and political reality), Hamas deserves credit for continuing its movement from obduracy toward political pragmatism.

There are two other platform articles worth noting. One calls for continuation of resistance against the Occupation (this translation, which doesn’t sound terribly felicitous and perhaps is not fully accurate–it entirely omits the passage referenced by Al Jazeera above–comes from Ynet):

3. Resistance in all its formed is a legitimate right of the Palestinian people in its path to put an end to the occupation and the reinstatement of its national rights.

While another one expands upon this more pragmatically:

9. In principle, we will be prepared to continue with the current calm, which is a path to obtain national goals, and not a goal. The calm does not mean a cancellation of the right to resist and the right to respond to Israeli violations. The calm is stipulated on the end of all Israeli aggression and the release of prisoners.

In a way, I believe that point 9 essentially subsumes point 3. In other words, Hamas is saying that while the hudna is a tactic rather than a strategy and potentially transitory, that the calm is a useful political tool right now. Should Israel resume targeting Hamas operatives, the latter reserves the right to respond. Given that neither side seems interested in doing so, things could stay calm for some time–hopefully some long time.

To be fair, not every news outlet has analyzed the platform in this way. Indeed, there is one troubling platform article:

5. The Palestinian government will address the reality created following prior agreements between the Authority and the Occupation and it is the right of the government to reassess these agreements on the basis of international law and in accordance with the rights of the Palestinians people.

This means that Hamas reserves the right to reexamine any agreements (including Oslo and the Road Map) entered into between the Fatah led PA and Israel. Such reexamination could conceivably mean that Hamas renounces some or all of them. Such potential for rejection of previous accords is a red flag for both Israel and the international community. It is also a red flag for Fatah, which has used this passage as one of its main reasons for refusing to join a Unity government.

But again, I think we have to wait and see what Hamas does in practice. If Hamas is foolhardy enough to reject specific agreements then we will know how serious it is about finding a rightful place among the ranks of democratic governments and we can act accordingly. But if, as I suspect, this point is meant to be interpreted theoretically rather than practically, and Hamas does not reject or radically revise any of these documents, then we will have an answer to the question of how pragmatic Hamas is. That means, of course that Israel, the EU, the Quartet and the U.S. should act accordingly and ease the pressure on Hamas according to the proportion of its moderation and pragmatism.

I note also that an A-Najah University public opinion poll finds that nearly 60% of Palestinians believe that Hamas should honor such previous agreements. If you think that Hamas wants to buck trends within the Palestinian polity, you’d be wrong. Hamas has proven throughout its recent successful election campaign that it has its ear to the ground and that it respects such public opinion. That’s why I doubt that Hamas would be stupid enough to attempt to strike out on its own regarding previous peace accords.

The Guardian’s coverage, Hamas falters in effort to achieve unity chose to focus on Hamas’ inability to persuade Fatah to join a unity government and on the provision of reopening previous deals with Israel. Regarding the platform plank about recognizing Israel, the newspaper chose to spin it much less positively than Al Jazeera:

On the question of recognising Israel, Hamas was non-committal.

There is certainly room for skepticism regarding Hamas. But I find Al Jazeera’s take on this interesting and plausible.

I note that the NY Times has not even covered the story. Ugh! Some ‘newspaper of record.’