Hamas’s strategic pivot to territorial claims
In an era where global and local forces intertwine, the conflict between Israel and Hamas takes on new dimensions. Dr. Enrico Molinaro’s groundbreaking research unveils a pivotal shift in Hamas’s strategy, from its roots in Glocalist ideology towards a Westphalian model of statehood and sovereignty. Through an in-depth exploration of Hamas’s transition, Dr. Molinaro navigates the complexities of identity, power, and ambition that define the struggle for a nation. As the world watches the unfolding events in Gaza and Israel, understanding these strategic shifts becomes crucial for grasping the future trajectories of this enduring conflict.
DPresident of Mediterranean Perspectives, National Coordinator of the Anna Lindh Foundation in Italy id the Hamas’ military wing, the Ezzedin al-Qassam Brigades, launch the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation of October 7, 2023, for territorial or religious motivations? An innovative epistemological perspective distinguishing two opposite Glocalist or Westphalian collective identity models may help understanding the events occurring in Israel and Gaza.
The Westphalian identitary vision relates to well-defined State physical boundaries, while the opposite Glocalist model highlights on the contrary communities within ideological, economic, theological, or spiritual intra- or trans-national virtual borders.
Since they revised their organization’s Charter in 2017, the Hamas leadership has apparently been shifting from the original Glocalist approach to the Westphalian model, aiming at establishing (art. 20) “a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967”.
On January 21, 2024, Hamas released the “Our Narrative” Report, officially claiming its goal for the 10/7 attack of “stopping the expansion of West Bank settlements and bringing an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip”.
Hamas denied allegations of war crimes, such as rapes and intentional mutilations, adding that its members were “keen to avoid harming civilians” and that any such targeting was by accident. In fact, all the acts of cruel violence that Israelis experienced as a result of the 10/7 attack are under the moral, legal, and political responsibility of Hamas, including those in which they were not directly involved, because their decision to breach the defensive fence protecting the State of Israel facilitated the entrance of thousands of additional armed violent Palestinians from Gaza.
Did Hamas plan, years earlier, such horrible rapes and similar unspeakable inhumane violence in order to spread psychological terror, or did its fighters transgress their initial orders? In the aforementioned Report Hamas admitted that “maybe some faults happened”, but explained the killing of innocent civilians with “the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the border areas near Gaza”.
Its 18-page report describes the current war as part of a 105-year-old struggle of the Palestinian nation against “colonialism”, 30 years against the British mandate, and 75 years against the State of Israel. “Israel has destroyed our ability to create a Palestinian state by accelerating the settlement enterprise,” Hamas said, blaming the United Nations for failing to stop the process. “Were we supposed to continue waiting and relying on the helpless UN institutions?” the document asked.
After the 10/7 Al-Aqsa Flood operation Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared a “right war against Hamas’ monsters”, comparing their brutal actions to those of the Islamic State (ISIS/Daesh): “Hamas is ISIS”. The two organizations, in fact, are quite different from each other.
ISIS is composed mainly of Iraqi and Syrian fighters, or from other areas of the world (Europe, Asia, North Africa), while Hamas has exclusively Palestinian members. Hamas’ attacks are aimed at Israeli targets; ISIS on the contrary has declared religious goals, as its propaganda is aimed at the entire Muslim community scattered around the globe, urging them to fight against the “infidels”, and carrying out attacks in Europe or other countries.
These significant differences, in light of the aforementioned Westphalian/Glocalist epistemological methodology, help understand why the Glocalist Islamic State carried out on January 3, 2024, the Suicide Bombing on the Memorial Route for the Assassination (by former Glocalist U.S. President Trump) of Westphalian Qasem Soleimani within the City of Kerman, in Iran, claiming the attack through its social networks.
The events developed over almost half a century in Iran since the death of Glocalist Ayatollah Khomeyni can explain this ISIS attack. The current Iranian President Ebraim Raisi has been basically following the Westphalian-oriented policy of his predecessor (since 2013) Hassan Rouhani, expressing the desire to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal signed in 2015 with Westphalian US President Obama, ending decades of tensions over Iran’s controversial nuclear program, which Glocalist US President Donald Trump boycotted in 2018, and, on the suggestion of the Westphalian Chinese leader Xi, took the historical decision to normalize relations with Sunni Saudi Arabia, joining together the Westphalian BRICS Group.
ISIS, on the contrary, follows the opposite transboundary Glocalist model. Its spokesman Mujahid Abu Hudhayfah Al-Ansari, while inviting Muslims to eliminate Jews around the world, accused Hamas of not establishing Islamic rule or the Sharia legal system in Gaza. According to the Glocalist Islamic State, Westphalian Hamas has prevented the Islamization of Gaza in every possible way: “Hamas is not a party worthy of leading Gaza and in whose ranks the Muslims of Gaza should fight”, Al-Ansari said.
Moreover, the ISIS spokesman stressed that with Israel there is first and foremost a religious war, while Hamas’ goals are “the liberation of the homeland, patriotism and strengthening their own power, which is why they believe that blood must be shed”, calling Hamas the ‘ guardian’, Al- Ansari called on Gaza fighters to “fight the Jews as Allah has ordained and for what Allah has established ( i. e. Islamic rule and the Sharia system), and not for the establishment of the land ( i. e. patriotism and the rule of Hamas), to govern according to the laws established from above by Allah and not laws invented by men”.
Whatever will be the outcome of the current war, an analysis of the ongoing Westphalian world historical cycle offers new scenarios where a radical change in the leadership of the two sides in the conflict may soon occur.
On the Israeli front, several demonstrations are clamoring for the resignation of the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
On the Palestinian side, the Hamas’ 10/7 attack also aimed at freeing Palestinian national leader Marwan Barghouti, - the charismatic leader of the first and the second Intifada held in Israeli jails for 21 years - apparently the only one capable of acting as a go-between to achieve peace and leading the united Palestinians after the end of the war, thus facilitating the aforementioned Westphalian Two-States peace solution for Palestinians and Israelis in conflict.