What Was Hamas Thinking? Understanding the Events in Gaza

Beyond the headlines, and regardless of who's to blame for what, there's the question of why Hamas chose to continue and intensify its rocket attacks against Israel in recent weeks. It would seem that Hamas's actions were both stupid and irrational from a strategic standpoint. "What the hell were they thinking?" Hamas is well aware of what happened the summer of 2006. Hezbollah provoked Israel across the border and Israel responded with the full might of its military. The same question was asked then. In answering it, it's important to remember that Hezbollah came out the "winner" that summer and is, partly as a result, stronger today than it was before the 2006 war.

So what are Hamas's strategic imperatives? There are a few things going on here. Hamas is effectively the government of Gaza, but this does not mean it acts like a state might in similar circumstances. Hamas still behaves like a traditional guerrilla or terrorist group. Such groups are interested in relative, not absolute, victory. As long as they survive, this can be spinned as victory, which makes them impossible to defeat in any conclusive sense.

Their goals include the following: to compel the target country, in this case Israel, to do something it otherwise wouldn't. This was one of al-Qaeda's primary objectives in 2001, to drag the U.S. into a war it was not prepared to fight, and, more specifically, to invite excessive military responses which it could then use to build sympathy and legitimacy for its cause, in spite of its the methods (Michael Doran, now the Bush administration's NSC director for the Middle East, wrote about this in what remains one of the definitive post-9/11 essays).

Hezbollah is nothing like al-Qaeda. The group is seen as a legitimate political actor in Lebanon and was and is part of the government, but some of the same strategic thinking applies. Even though Hezbollah's operational infrastructure was destroyed, it was still able to secure relatively favorable cease-fire terms. Building off summer 2006, it was able claim "victory" once again with the 2008 Doha agreement.

So, back to Gaza: Hamas continued its rocket attacks into Israel knowing full well that a crushing Israeli response was likely, or at least a distinct possibility. Hamas is, as we speak, being destroyed, but it would be a mistake to judge unfolding events solely on those terms. Strategically, Hamas did what it did for several reasons:

1. Hamas has been an increasingly untenable position for more than a year, as the situation in Gaza has deteriorated. They are roped in and isolated, and groups which feel under siege are more likely to take potentially self-defeating risks. To shake the status quo, Hamas may have wanted to provoke Israel in order to build pressure internally and externally for a unified Palestinian response to Israel. In other words, Palestinians, including those belonging to nemesis Fatah, are almost certain to rally to Hamas's side. They already are. This will strengthen prospects for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation in the future. Not all elements of Hamas necessarily want this, but some do.

2. Hamas does not operate in a political vacuum. It aims to influence regional and international audiences. Particularly in the Arab and Muslim world, Hamas's perceived legitimacy and popularity will increase. Arab governments will be under pressure to rally behind the Palestinians. Jordan, one of our closest allies, reopened formal relations with Hamas recently (I wrote about this here). The regional context today is different than it was in the summer of 2006.

3. Some, including Bradley Burston of Haaretz, have argued that a main aim of Hamas is to come out of this with better cease-fire terms. This may be the case, but, if so, it strikes me as a miscalculation on Hamas's part. Then again, that's what I thought about Hezbollah's actions in 2006, and I turned out to be wrong. But political actors learn. Just as Hamas takes certain cues from the past, so does Israel. Israel is not likely to repeat the same mistakes it made in 2006.

4. I've heard the argument that Hamas may be trying to influence the upcoming Israeli elections. I am not going to read too much into this possibility, because, on a gut level, I have trouble believing that Hamas would be devious enough to, in effect, strengthen Labor-Kadima against Likud, which will, in my view, be the ultimate result of the Gaza operation. Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Labor, who previously didn't seem to have a prayer, might very well rise to electoral victory in February. However, Hamas may have calculated that a Gaza incursion would aid Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, which is likely the outcome the dominant faction in Hamas would prefer (I will discuss internal Hamas divisions in a minute).

5. Hamas is also fully aware that there will be a new U.S. administration come January 20th. How this reality affected their calculations is not entirely clear to me, but they obviously had to have taken it into account. Either way, I don't see this as a decisive factor in what unfolded over the last few weeks, but rather as something that will affect the overall context in the coming weeks.

This takes me back to one of my initial points: Hamas is not a unitary actor. It is riddled by internal divisions between the political wing ("politicians") and military wing ("militants") or, put another way, between "pragmatists" and "hardliners." This is not to say that the "pragmatists" are not influenced by ideological imperatives or that the "hardliners" are not pragmatic. It is to say that both groups have different objectives. Understanding internal organizational dynamics are critical to a fuller understanding of Hamas's strategic behavior.

Hamas's decision to continue rocket attacks, and provoke Israel, means the "militants" within the organization, led by Khaled Meshal, continue their dominance (compared to 2006 and early 2007 when their grasp appeared to be weakening). This group sees Hamas as a primarily military organization rather than a political one. Ismail Haniyeh, former Palestinian prime minister, is the most prominent member of the competing trend that had wanted Hamas to make the transition from a terrorist group into a more "normalized" political actor. Needless to say, it failed. Haniyeh and his associates are aware that if Hamas reverts back to suicide bombings, which appears likely, then his stand will become even weaker and less relevant than it was three weeks ago. That's in the short-term. But the irony is that if Hamas achieves some of the objectives listed above, then it could have the eventual effect of strengthening the Haniyeh "political" wing.

It's difficult to isolate the variables, since much of how things will unfold depends on actors that Hamas has little control over: Israel, the United States, Fatah, the U.N., Iran, and increasingly, yes, even Russia. I guess one could say that political actors always act rationally, but often in ways that are irrational.

Comments

[simplycharly]

Journalist John Pilger has given a very sobering account of this conflict in a documentary called "Palestine Is Still The Issue." Check out the full documentary on Youtube at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yehzp8ytMp8

[Aussieposter]

I am yet to be convinced that Hamas is responsible an that this is not a Mossad covert operation desinged to eliminate Hamas before George Bush is replaced. Israel has not been reluctant about harming its on people to reach a goal.

"The Patria disaster occurred on 25 November 1940 when the Patria, a French-built ocean liner, was bombed and sank in Haifa harbour, killing 260 people] and injuring another 172. At the time of the sinking, the Patria was carrying around 1,800 Jews, refugees from Nazi occupied Europe who the British considered to be illegal immigrants. The refugees were being deported from the British Mandate of Palestine to Mauritius and Trinidad. The deportation was opposed by Zionist organisations including the underground paramilitary Haganah group, which planted a bomb with the intention of disabling the ship to prevent it from leaving Haifa. However, the Haganah miscalculated the effects of the explosion and the bomb caused the ship to sink in under fifteen minutes, trapping hundreds in the hold. The survivors were subsequently permitted to remain in Palestine on humanitarian grounds. Who was responsible and the true reason why the Patria sank remained controversial mysteries until 1957, when the person who placed the bomb published a book about his experiences."

If Israel can sink a ship loaded with Holocaust refugees. It can fire a few rockets at itself.

[basta]

Hamas wants war and unfortunately, Israel hasn't found a solution beyond the military one. And what is the future of an isolated piece of land with a million and half people completely dependent on Israel for all life necessities? It is a horrible place to live and a perfect breeding ground for extremists. Meanwhile, even the Egyptians won't allow Palestinians passage into their country and appears to have no intention of helping their Arab brothers. How could these people be independent even if they wanted to be? The only real practical solution is for Egypt to hand over/sell a piece of Sinai for an expansion of the Palestinian State, and for this State to have a partnership with Israel and other developed countries to help develop the Palestinian economy.

[paulfree17]

If all the money used to build weapons was used to provide food and housing then we might not need as many weapons.

Why doesn't anyone ask HAMAS if they can get missiles and guns into GAZA then why can't they get food and medicine? The government of Gaza is the one that decides where it will spend its money. Caring for its people or attacking Israel are two choices. If they were not launching missiles there would be no blockage and then Hamas would have no excuse for the abject poverty that exists in Gaza.

[DenverJuggler]

Thank you Shadi.

This was a great article that avoided emotion or assigning blame and just stated what each side was doing and why strategically they think they can benefit. Very enlightening.

I hope it doesn't come to the end strategy that was seen in Lebanon with Hezbollah and that the two sides can work out an agreement before any kind of ground invasion.

[therealtruthteller]

Shadi Hamid keep at it and you will become a darling of the American press.

[Motek]

Very astute. Thanks.

[newzzzjunkie]

Why do people think it's alright for Hamas to consistently attack Israel? Israel is totally surrounded by enemies and has to fight back against these attacks with a mighty force. That way maybe more intelligent enemies just might think twice before attacking Israel. The American military could learn a thing or two from the Israelis.

Israel has the right to defend itself. And they certanly have a right to exist.

[Aussieposter]

(Part A 250 word limit)

Palestinians are a people under occupation who has the right to self-determination under the UN Charter, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations from 1970, and Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Palestinians possess a specific history in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to gain self-governance.

The right to self-determination was acknowledged by the international community in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, and recently by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Advisory Opinion on the Wall (section 118). The ICJ stated that:

"¦construction, along with measures taken previously, thus severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‘determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel"s obligation to respect that right" (section 122).

[Aussieposter]

{Part B 250 word limit)

International humanitarian law (IHL) does not expressly mention the right of an occupied people to resist an occupation. In 1977 article 1(4) of the First Additional Protocol (IAP) to the Geneva Conventions clearly expanded the application of the IHL to

"¦armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination...".

However, Israel is not state-party to the Protocol and is therefore not obliged to follow its clause.
The use of force as part of resisting occupation in the Palestinian case is therefore derived from the international legitimacy to recourse to armed struggle in order to obtain the right to self-determination. In some cases resistance can also stem from the right to self-defence.

[rjohns3]

Funny how people always point the finger at the people firing the rockets. Perhaps if they were not forced out of their homes and off their land or had it halved by a giant wall they would not fire rockets? Do you think Americas would sit by if Mexico or Canada starting taking land N or S of their borders.

[Overlord34]

Do your research before making such claims. Most Palestinians in 1948 left their homes voluntarily and were goaded into doing so by the Arab nations bordering Israel. Moreover, it's very nice and easy to simply say it was "their" land when the entire conflict is all about deciding who has a legitimate claim to which land.

And yes, I will point the finger at the people firing rockets. Even if I felt land was unfairly taken from me, I wouldn't respond by firing hundreds of missiles into civilian population centers with the intent to injure and kill innocent people. If you would, then I think your moral compass is pretty screwed up.

Moreover, read the Hamas charter before making such claims. They're not firing the rockets because they were forced out of their homes or because of disputes over certain sections of land. They're firing the rockets to kill Jews and destroy the entire state of Israel. Hmm, you think maybe that's why they refuse to recognize Israel's right to resist and aren't interested in a two-state solution?

[bob72]

I don't think that rjohns3 was talking about 1948. The current situation for many Palestinians is very miserable. The Israelis make it harder and harder for them to live.

Perhaps if the Palestinians had something to lose, they would not be so supportive of terrorism. If they had homes worth keeping, jobs, security, etc they might not support rocket attacks on their oppressors.

I'm not condoning the rocket attacks, but I can imagine that I would resort to terrorism if I thought I had no other choice...tea party anyone?

[Aussieposter]

That the Palestinians left their homes willingly is plain propaganda and lies. Do your own research again and pay particular attention to Israeli Historian Benny Morris;

"It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed, there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. "

and also the Haganah Plan Dalet.

However for the sake of discussion let us give credence to the false claim that the Palestinians left willingly. Unarmed peasants have for thousands of years left the area of conflict to return to their homes once the fighting is over. The right of return is guaranteed under international Law

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) article 13

So even if we permit the lie that they left willingly. You did not have the right to stop them from returning.

[Poster6497]

I'm an Israeli and you, sir, obviously haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Read Tom Segev and Benny Morris (Two prominent Israeli historians) and you will soon realize that the Palestinians in 1948 and in 1967 were terrorized by various militias including the Stern gang, the Irgun, Lechi, Hagana etc.

Israeli forces would enter a Palestinian village, grab one or two men and shoot them in the village square. Then they would announce that if the residents wanted to stay alive they better pack their stuff and leave.

In 1948 more than 460 villages were systematically destroyed this way.

I could go on...

[geoffrobinson]

Hama is an organized death cult which the Palestinian people support in large numbers. We must get our minds around that fact when we try to understand what they do.

[Poster6497]

Hamas was elected in a democratic election after Fatah failed to deliver better living conditions and to end the occupation through the decades long negotiations with Israel.

So, in 2006, after Bush pushed for a Palestinian election, Hamas was elected in hopes of bringing change and ending the Palestinian people's suffering under the occupation.

Coincidentally, Hamas was originally armed and funded with the support of Israel to fight Fatah.

Israel figured, with two warring factions, it won't have to commit to any peace treaty for a long time, meanwhile, it would create facts on the ground, build more settlements in the West Bank and confiscate more privately owned Palestinian lands and demolish Palestinian homes that stood in the way.

YOu can take that information to the bank.

[jamilk99]

Israel's bombs have killed over 300 people. A Hamas suicide bomber would probably not kill more than a dozen. I'm not condoning suicide bombings but they cause nowhere near the amount of death and destruction that Israel has perpetrated on Gaza.

[messy]

It seems that you are "condoning suicide bombings" by saying that "they're not all that bad."

[jamilk99]

I'm saying they're not causing as much death and destruction as Israel's bombs.

[Overlord34]

You're ignoring two major differences between suicide bombers and the Israeli strikes.

One, you're ignoring the reasons behind each. Israel is striking Gaza because Hamas is firing rockets at Israel. Imagine if China fired rockets daily at LA from a warship. Any country would be completely justified in taking immediate action to halt such attacks, even if tragically some civilians would be killed. Barring an alternative, using military force to halt attacks is completely reasonable.

Additionally, Israel intends to strike only Hamas militants and physical structures, minimize civilian casualties, and cease after halting Hamas attacks. In fact, most people killed during the strike are not civilians but Hamas militants. Contrast that with the reasons for, and morality of, suicide bombing, whose goal is to intentionally kill as many civilians as possible and terrorize the population. Coupled with the Hamas charter, which authorizes and encourages killing Jews (article 7), Hamas suicide bombing ostensibly has no end and its rationale borders on genocide.

Two, you're overlooking the psychological and terrorizing effects that suicide bombing has on civilians. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be afraid to live your daily life without wondering whether you'll be killed. You can't see that kind of pain, but I am sure it takes a constant toll which limits and paralyzes Israeli citizens' lives.

Equating suicide bombing with the Israeli strikes because less people are killed is an uninformed and dangerous way of evaluating the situation that doesn't bring us closer to peace.

[Poster6497]

Imagine if you actually knew what you were talking about. Wouldn't that be nice?

Gaza is under occupation. The same goes for the West Bank. The Palestinians are the Native Americans of the Middle East and Israel is slowly but surely taking over their lands and wiping them out.

Now, imagine what the Native Americans thought when the European colonizers called them "terrorists".

[SonofLiberty1]

I just can't believe this is happening

AGAIN?

You know, maybe it's darn time that we let these folks just "shoot it out"?

Maybe we should just leave the middle east entirely?

[messy]

Then they'll start going after Spain. They think that's occupied territory too.

[Poster6497]

Who, Israel?

A few years ago, the Israeli Prime Minister demanded an apology from Spain's monarch for the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 15th century.

[bob72]

Unfortunately our world isn't a "live and let live" world. The history of the tanglements between the west and the middle-east goes back thousands of years. Pulling out would not be such a clean break. And letting them "shoot it out" would not result in one side winning and the otherside behaving from then on.

[NemoNoOne]

This post is probably correct in most of its particulars, and even in its tentative conclusions. The truly sad thing is that it simply reflects the fact that both sides are calculating, cynical actors which, regardless of consequences for their civilian populations, their respective economies, or their moral beings, continue to promote political ends. Machiavelli would be proud. There is no hope for this situation (there isn't even a "this situation") without a floor-to-ceiling revamp of attitude - and that's not gonna happen without inspired leadership.

Nemo

[allensf]

the start of another intifada is looming. Suicide bombers will be looking for targets in Israel, and unfortunately...the US. We have to come to the realization in this country that we are lumped together with Israel now. What Israel does is perceived as what the US does. Our terrorist threat just skyrocketed the other day when Israel killed 300 people. I, as an American agnostic non religious person, resent this whole judeo-christian muslim holy war that is happening. Take your issues to some other corner of the world and just have it out, I'm sick of it and don't want any part of it.

[mattheweste]

Your attitude makes you complicit.

Palestinians and others have a perfect right to fight back against what your country is doing. By dismissing it all as "their issues" and pretending its nothing to do with your country, you add to the problem by giving your government moral cover to continue the occupation.

[merrymonk]

This is assuming most Gulf and Arab states are as concerned about the PLO or PNA as they want people to believe. Certainly not the Syrians who would have been glad to have seen or been involved in knocking off Arafat. I think they were rather pissed off when Reagan protected him when the marines sent him off under his orders out of Lebanon when the Syrians and Israeli's were ready to hand him his head on a platter. The Hezbolla and Lebanon are indifferent, they have their own issues with Syria.
Saudi Arabia? Why should they care when they are out financing half the world and they never directly have been involved in a war with Israel. Besides, the PLO and PNA do not share Saudi's views, theologically or otherwise. The Egyptians are not anymore impressed with Hamas than they are with the Moslem Brotherhood.
In fact, when you look at places like Syria, Jordan, for example, they see a PLO PNA group who tried to overthrow their own governments.
There is no love lost there -- a lot of empty promises and rhetoric, but if Israel makes peace or not with the PLO PNA, it makes little difference to any of their neighbors. The Gulf States and Arab countries tacitly support Israel and vice versa more so than any actually support the PLO PNA, Given their histories with the group, it is no surprise.