HAMAS

Hamas

Abstract

This study explicates the Terrorist Organization named Hamas which operates in Palestine. The study focuses on secondary research and in-depth analysis to expound the ideology, tactics, and target selection tactics. It also focuses on an hypothetical scenario. In January 2006 Hamas, an organization classified by Western governments as 'terrorist' with a long history of political violence against both civilians and military personnel, was democratically elected to govern the Palestinian territories. Hamas' ideology is neither inherently anti-democratic, nor anti-modern nor wholly anti-Western. An Islamic state can only come about if willed by the people. At the same time, Hamas insists that only God's law will free people from tyranny and that only in an Islamic state will people be genuinely free. There are various ways in which Hamas uses religion to strengthen its democratic credentials. Hamas is also unique in that it uses terrorist and guerrilla tactics in its resistance against Israel, while it mainly uses non-violence as a political party in Palestinian politics and some guerrilla tactics against its rival party, Fatah. The Department of State defines “foreign terrorist organizations" as groups that engage in "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.

Table of Content

Introduction4

Hamas Ideology7

Question to Ex-Hamas Member9

Tactics9

Factors under Consideration11

Difference in Relation to Hamas12

Hypothetical Situation13

Implementation of the Scenario13

Opportunities for Early Warning and Detection14

Reference15

Hamas

Introduction

In January 2006 Hamas, an organization classified by Western governments as 'terrorist' with a long history of political violence against both civilians and military personnel, was democratically elected to govern the Palestinian territories. The apparent contradictions in this situation have left many observers at a loss. Hamas has used political violence against both Israel and its main political rival, Fatah, yet it won the 2006 election on a law, order and social welfare ticket. It pursues an Islamic state, yet holds internal elections and champions democracy. It campaigns for Shariah law, yet its leaders are predominantly secular professionals rather than religious scholars. It calls for the destruction of Israel, yet has shown (limited) readiness to consider honoring previous peace agreements. One view of Hamas, dominant in the rhetoric of Western politicians and some academics, is that the organization has certain inherent characteristics and that it cannot, and will not, change. This view-which Klein labels the 'static approach' (Klein, 2007: 442)-is neither interested in contradiction nor in the possibility of change. Violent and so-called 'fanatical' behavior is highlighted as an innate characteristic while contradictory evidence is marginalized as irrelevant or duplicitous. Hamas' welfare network is depicted as solely dedicated to funding, promoting and supporting terrorism without much consideration of what other purposes this network may serve, and what contradictions this introduces (Khalid, 2000). Tensions between Hamas' political theory and democratic principles are explained away by pointing to the fundamental incompatibility between political Islam and democracy. Evidence of transformation is ignored, enabling Dennis Ross, former U.S. envoy to the Middle East, to state with certainty that Hamas is unlikely “to undergo a transformation". Within such a framework, Hamas is typically cast as the primary obstacle to the successful resolution ...