Q&A - Hamas and Jund Ansar Allah

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem

Answer to a Question

Question:

What are the political dimensions of the recent escalation in Gaza between Hamas and the Salafi group of Jund Ansar Allah, which led to the killing of about 28 persons, including the Emir of the group Abdul-Latif Moussa and injuring about 130?

Answer:

The political dimensions of what occurred in Gaza are likeliest to be as follows:

First: Sending a message to the international community suggesting that Hamas is a moderate and liberal movement. It is a good character reference that enables Hamas to pursue its negotiations with Western sides and paves the way for a meeting with members of the US administration. The recent bloodbath of Rafah crowned several actions that Hamas had undertaken to attain this good character reference from the West. Khaled Mashaal had announced publicly that Hamas was prepared to accept the rise of a Palestinian state over the 1967 borders and to sign a long-term truce with the Jewish entity, which is the same position of the PLO headed by Fatah. It has also been noted that the American administration is preparing to include Hamas in the forthcoming negotiations whereby Hamas would be part of the solution. This was reflected in the meeting between Khaled Mashaal and the former US President Jimmy Carter. It was also reflected in the statements made by John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, during a talk he delivered at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies on 6th August 2009; he said: “the President does not describe this as war on terrorism, because terrorism is but a tactic - a means to an end, which in al Qaeda's case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate.” Hence, the statements of John Brennan indicate that America is working towards differentiating between al-Qaeda organisations and other groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah and Hamas were projected as legitimate or quasi-legitimate political and social movements that cannot be ruled out of the political game or excluded from the peace process in the Middle East.

Second: Exerting further pressure on the Jewish entity to force it to make concessions to settle the Palestinian issue, by sending a message to “Israel” stipulating that “talking to a moderate Hamas is better for it than the movements that call for global Jihad and settle for no less than annihilating it altogether; and that the threat of al-Qaeda is only few kilometres away from its southern borders.”

Third: Preparing the grounds to execute the deal on Shalit. Labelling Hamas as a liberal or moderate movement would spare the Netanyahu government the embarrassment of negotiating with Hamas to secure the release of Shalit, and would ease the expected pressure from rightwing elements in his government; it would also pave the way for future negotiations with the Hamas movement over the peace process as a whole.

Fourth: America has been working towards diluting the concept of Jihad by making it confined to groups here and there and by diverting the Ummah’s attention away from the institutions that are capable of performing Jihad and achieving results, namely the armed forces. She has also been working towards trivialising the concept of Khilafah by inducing the announcement of several “Islamic Emirates” in various parts of the Islamic world and making them fight each other and accuse one another of Kufr. For instance, seven “Islamic Emirates” were announced in the Pakistani tribal region with an “Emir of the believers” heading each one of them. This is what happened in Gaza, where the rise of an emirate came in an area ruled by Hamas, which is described as an Islamic movement.

26 Sha’aban 1430
17 August 2009