By SOPHIE POMMIER
On October 7, 2023, Ismaïl Haniyeh appeared on the screens of the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera in his office in Doha. He gave a twenty-minute speech explaining the causes and objectives of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation, launched from Gaza the same day. This text deserves to be studied closely. It is indeed very instructive on a political level and ultimately rather measured. Prior to the massacres of civilians in Gaza, the speech, first broadcast on YouTube, was then censored.
The head of the Hamas Political Bureau appeared soberly dressed as usual in a white shirt and a jacket adorned with a pin in the shape of the Palestinian flag. He expressed himself in a controlled manner, far from the vociferations of certain preachers or war leaders, even if the tone became harsher towards the end. He also varied the language register used, moving from classical Arabic which dominates the discourse to Palestinian dialect when it comes to evoking the suffering of the people of Gaza, or the fate of the prisoners which takes on an emotional and affective value. particular. In the background, a view of Jerusalem with the Dome of the Rock illustrates the double dimension of the conflict, national and religious.
WE WARNED THEM...
The speech returns several times to the origin of the current escalation, attributed both to Israel's aggressive attitude and the indifference of the international community to the tragedy of the Palestinians. Hamas did not want this war but was forced into it. The text evokes the imminence of danger and the risks jeopardizing the very survival of Palestine. It is this context which would have forced Hamas to act, Israel remaining deaf to its repeated warnings. Hamas explicitly places responsibility for the attack on Israel, on the international community, and more indirectly on the Arab regimes in the region.
To show that patience is running out and that “enough is enough” the formula “How many times…” comes up several times to punctuate the speech.
FEAR OF ISOLATION
By exposing the weakness and failures of the Israelis, the operation launched by Hamas shows the limits of an alliance with Tel Aviv. The reference is clear: it is the Abraham Accords, signed by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on September 15, 2020, under American sponsorship. Milestones were then laid to extend this alliance to Morocco and Sudan, attracted on this path by other considerations.
Incapable of ensuring its own protection, Israel will be even less able to guarantee that of its new allies. Haniyeh points out – and he is not the only one – the failure of Israeli intelligence and security apparatus:
You must know that this entity which is incapable of protecting itself against our fighters is incapable of providing you with security or protection. The whole process of normalization and recognition, all the agreements that have been signed [with Israel] can never end this battle.
The danger against which Arab countries seek to protect themselves by moving closer to Israel is obviously Iran. The message from the Hamas leader is particularly aimed at Saudi Arabia, which recently seemed to be making great strides on the path to normalization. It is clear in fact that the rallying of the new heavyweight of the regional scene to the Abraham Accords would deal a fatal blow to the already very measured support of the Arabs for the Palestinian cause. The tone against this abandonment becomes accusatory: “Today, Gaza is erasing from the Arab-Muslim Community the shame of defeats, the shame of acceptance and inaction.”
This question of normalization between Israel and certain Arab states arises very quickly in the course of the argument. The speaker returns to it again at the end of his speech, which testifies to the importance of this point. This insistence can actually lead one to question the degree of involvement of the Iranians in the launch of the operation, as an article in the Wall Street Journal dated October 8, 20231 does. It is obvious that the rapprochement between Riyadh and Tel Aviv would deal a very heavy blow to the Iranians and reinforce their isolation.
AN APPEAL TO THE ARAB-MUSLIM COMMUNITY
In his speech, Haniyeh returns to the unsustainable blockade imposed on the population of Gaza:
Gaza which has suffered this blockade for almost twenty years2 during which there have been four or five wars3 which have caused tens of thousands of martyrs and wounded, houses destroyed, Gaza which is experiencing this humanitarian tragedy, this giant prison which locks up more of 2 million of our people and our families.
He evokes the deterioration of the situation of the Palestinians in recent months: Israeli raids in the West Bank, the deaths of innocent civilians, the desecration of holy sites, the limitations imposed on Palestinians in the exercise of their worship at al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, and at the Tomb of the Patriarchs (Ibrahim Mosque) in Hebron, as well as the abuses of the settlers. He reports serious threats weighing on the West Bank, where “two million” settlers are ready to settle, and on the Muslim holy sites of which the Israelis are preparing to take control.
Islamist movement obliges: the speech opens with the usual religious formulas. The general tone is that generally used by Islamic fighting organizations, with recourse to hyperbole and high-sounding, triumphalist rhetoric. It is peppered with eight Koranic references. The question of holy places is raised several times, to evoke their desecration or the risk of seeing Muslims dispossessed of their places of worship. It sheds light on the name of the operation launched against Israel, with a double religious connotation: “Al-Aqsa Flood”. The choice of the background image is part of the same register.
Haniyeh encourages Arab-Muslim people to support the Palestinians:
Gaza is the spearhead of the Resistance and started this battle, but as it is a battle that concerns the land of Palestine and Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, it is the battle of the entire Ummah. This is why I call on all the children of this Umma, wherever they are in the world, to join, each in their own way, in this battle, without delay or turning away.
By this injunction, he of course intends to strengthen the scope of the offensive. It is also about putting Arab leaders at odds with their populations, showing that rapprochement with Israel is massively rejected.
THE FATE OF THE PRISONERS
The text is also intended to be universal in scope: it calls for solidarity with the Palestinians and general mobilization. The Palestinians are of course concerned, all Palestinians wherever they are (in Palestine, in Israel, in the diaspora), who must defend their land. Part of the al-Qassam Brigades, extended to other factions of the Resistance and then to all Palestinians, the current war is not exclusively that of Hamas, even if it leads it. The emphasis here is on unity. The operation is part of the cycle of intifadas and completes their cycle. It also concerns, beyond the Arab and Muslim peoples, all men of good will who want to fight injustice.
The fate of the prisoners, whose number the Hamas leader estimates at 6,000, and the blockage of negotiations for their release take on particular importance in his speech. For the Palestinian population, this is a crucial point and therefore an element of legitimacy for Hamas. Haniyeh names the Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir as the major architect of the tension on this issue, with the tightening of detention conditions. He is also the only Israeli official cited in the text. The Israeli supremacist was also implicated in the fiasco of the Israeli security forces on the edge of Gaza, for having weakened and exposed them by moving troops towards the West Bank, in order to support the settlers. But these crossed accusations will not necessarily end his political career.
The Israeli refusal to accept requests for release justifies the capture of Israeli prisoners and hostages to force them to resume discussions. On this point too, warnings had been issued on several occasions.
THE POSSIBILITY OF A POLITICAL SETTLEMENT
Listening carefully to the speech, we will see that Ismaïl Haniyeh does not close the door to a possible political settlement. First of all, the enemy is not stigmatized as a non-Muslim, he is not identified as a “Jew” but rather as an “Israeli”. The existence of Israel is therefore not called into question, which reflects the evolution of Hamas in relation to the text of its 1988 charter which called for replacing Israel with an Islamic state, and advocated jihad against the Jews. A new text published in 2017 already adopted a more realistic position.
Haniyeh does not call for the destruction of Israel as, for example, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did in 2005. While he himself declared in 2012 in Tehran that Hamas would never recognize Israel, he is content here to demand the departure of Israelis from Palestinian lands, the counterpart of the fate that they had reserved for the Palestinians. But he remains quite vague on his vision of Palestine, effectively leaving the door open to the two-state solution. The time has passed when the movement aimed to reestablish Palestine “from the Mediterranean to the Jordan”. When the leader of Hamas mentions the territories occupied in 1948, it is above all to denounce the discrimination suffered by internal Palestinians: “How many times have we warned you about what you are committing and perpetrating in the occupied territories in 1948, and your attempts to isolate our people there? »
Likewise, the Qur'anic verses chosen are not those which call for fighting “the infidels”, but rather for standing up against injustice and testifying to the courage and dignity of believers. Allusion is even made to the three holy books: the Torah, the Gospel and the Qor'an. The theme of dignity is very present and comes up numerous times. It’s about erasing shame, speaking out against the “culture of helplessness and despair”.
Some will object that this relatively moderate speech is nothing but duplicity and that it certainly in no way reflects the positions of Mohamed Deif, the leader of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, with whom Haniyeh affirms its solidarity. Deif, in charge of operations on the ground, is undoubtedly partly responsible for the abuses against civilians, although he called in his own speech to spare the elderly and children. However, by including Hamas on the list of terrorist organizations in the same way as its armed branch which previously appeared there, part of the international community has rejected all these actors in the same category of unacceptable. In 2003, when the question arose, France was reluctant and believed that it was necessary to maintain dialogue with Hamas. But in the complicated context of the second intifada, it ended up complying and giving in to pressure from its European partners.
REOPEN NEGOTIATIONS?
Analysis of this speech reveals two essential points. The first is the desire to dissuade Arab states, and particularly Saudi Arabia, from pursuing rapprochement with Israel. The choice of medium is not insignificant: Al-Jazeera has made a specialty of supporting the Palestinian cause. While Qatar paid with several years of isolation for its proximity to the Muslim Brotherhood – an allegiance to which Hamas is attached – and its enthusiasm for the “Arab Spring”, it was more or less reintegrated in 2021 into “the family golfer”. By relaying the words of Haniyeh who installed Hamas offices in Doha in 2016, the small emirate persists and signs, relaying the voice of the Arab people to their leaders. A commitment which should be seen as irritating, particularly by the Saudis. In any case, the latter clearly perceived the challenge: Crown Prince Mohamed Ben Salman reacted to recent events by affirming that the Kingdom “stands alongside the Palestinian people to assert their legitimate right to a dignified life, to realization of their hopes and aspirations and the finalization of a just and lasting peace”. The Saudi foreign affairs statement again calls – albeit rather weakly – for a two-state solution. An almost obligatory reminder to which the United Arab Emirates also paid lip service at the time of the launch of the Abraham Accords. However, it is not certain that after the crisis, Riyadh will not return to Tel Aviv.
Paradoxically, and this is the second point, the offensive launched by Hamas perhaps aims to reopen negotiations. It is not insignificant that it was launched the day after the celebration of the 1973 war. Haniyeh also draws the parallel by speaking of a “crossing” (“oubour”) to describe the breakthrough of the Israeli lines, following the terminology used at the time, regarding the crossing of Egyptian troops through the Suez Canal. By taking the initiative for the attack, President Sadat had then re-established a form of balance with the enemy allowing him to initiate negotiations and a process of normalization with Israel, without being in a position of too great inferiority and without lose face. The Islamist leader says it explicitly: the Israelis underestimated the Palestinians. These remain important interlocutors, which cannot be avoided, the establishment of a future settlement of the Palestinian question remaining the essential prerequisite for the establishment of regional peace and the end of the cycle of violence and bereavement.
Contrary to what was expected, the unfolding events - in particular the massacres of Israeli civilians - have seriously undermined support for the Palestinian cause in the Western world. It remains to be seen whether the current war will set the region ablaze and put people on the streets or if, once the emotion has subsided and the victims have been counted, History will resume its course, further marginalizing the Palestinian question. Hamas would then have lost its bet.
By SOPHIE POMMIER
Arabized, with a degree in history and political science, she taught at Sciences Po Paris and held diplomatic positions in the Near and Middle East region, particularly in Iraq and Egypt.
Source: Orient XXI
