By Blake Alcott

How many people, making claims about how evil Hamas is, know the first thing about Hamas? How many have at least read what this large, popular movement has said it believes and wants to do? Very few.

In this article, I look at what Hamas has said in two documents – the Covenant of 18 August 1988 and the Document of 1 May 2017. One might invoke the adage, ‘Judge not what I say, but what I do’. And Hamas has done many things over the last 35 years: politicizing, promoting Islam, providing social services, governing, educating, and fighting.

Its fighting branch, the Al-Qassam Brigades, in my opinion with full justification, has seen to it that it can attack with some success the military parts of the colonizing power, Israel. This is a normal, armed liberation struggle, its goal being an independent Palestine from the river to the sea, replacing the colonial-apartheid entity now in power.

Judging what Hamas did on 7 October 2023 will have to wait until the facts are in. Only then can we say which of the roughly 800 Israelis killed who were not at the time in uniform were bonafide civilians, and whether they were killed by Hamas, Israel, or others. But concerning Hamas’ ideology, for a first assessment let’s get it from the horse’s mouth. What I do not analyze or judge here is how Hamas rules the 2.2 million citizens of the Gaza Strip, but rather only Hamas’ stance over against the Zionist entity and over against other resistance groups including the PLO and Fatah.

The Global-Western Zionist press and politics declare themselves competent to pronounce that Hamas’ ultimate intention is to kill all the Jews in the world – or sometimes just those in Israel, who would at least be pushed into the sea. Brandeis University wrote a letter banning the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine in which it claimed that Hamas calls for the “elimination of Israel and the Jewish people”. Congressman Mike Lawler of New York ‘knows’ that Hamas “is a terrorist organization whose primary purpose is the eradication of the Jewish people”.

Online show master Piers Morgan believes “Hamas’ stated intent (is) to wipe Israel off the face of the earth”, a statement which irresponsibly conflates the end of Israel, a state, with the end of individual Israelis, and even to “kill all Jews”. Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard condemned the “Islamist Hamas terrorists who are calling for a genocide, the extermination of all Jews, not just in Israel, but around the world”.

The media where I live, in Zürich, Switzerland, brim over with similar statements, the most virulent in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. One of their regular writers is Martin Rhonheimer, whose Wikipedia pages describe him as a ‘Swiss Jewish’ native of Zürich who became a Catholic priest within the Opus Dei system in 1983. On 13 November he claimed (my translation) that Hamas’ “goal is the annihilation and extermination (Vernichtung und Auslöschung) of the Jews and everything Jewish and their state – that is, a second Shoa.”

Is there any evidence in official Hamas writings that it wants to kill all Jews, or some Jews because they are Jews, or any non-combatants at all? Hamas, after all, itself says it is fighting Zionism and the Israeli occupation (colonization) – just as past Palestinians fought nicht-Jewish Crusaders and Tartars.

The Words Themselves

Hamas’ currently official enunciation of its principles and goals was published, after several years of work by a large number of its members, on 1 May 2017. It’s called ‘A Document of General Principles and Policies’. Following its page-long Preamble are 42 sections (Articles). Hamas’ first such ‘Charter’ or Covenant was published on 18 August 1988. Written by Abdul Fattah Dukhan, its two-page Introduction is followed by 36 Articles.

The 2017 Document I’ll quote was translated into English by Hamas itself – here or here. For the 1988 Covenant I’ll use two English translations, one by Muhammad Maqdsi of Dallas, Texas, as published in the Journal of Palestine Studies 22 (4), Summer 1993, pp. 122-34, and the other on Yale University’s ‘Avalon’ website.

The Goal

The Document’s Preamble begins: “Palestine is the land of the Arab Palestine people, from it they originate, to it they adhere and belong, and about it they reach out and communicate.” As Article 2 soon clarifies, by ‘Palestine’ is meant the land from the “River Jordan” to the “Mediterranean” and from “Ras Al-Naqurah” to “Um Al-Rashrash.

After thus asserting political ownership of the whole of historic Palestine, they then attest its “occupation”: “Palestine is a land that was seized by a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project that was founded on a false promise (the Balfour Declaration), on recognition of a usurping entity and on imposing a fait accompli by force.” “By force” means: against the will of the indigenous people.

The Preamble states the goal: “Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital.” “Return” is of course that of the roughly 8 million refugees who have for 75 years been forcibly prevented by Israel from returning to their places of origin in historic Palestine.

Article 1 states the goal more briefly: “to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project”. It then adds that Hamas’ “frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.” Article 2 then spells out that “Palestine… is an integral territorial unit” and that the fact that “the Palestinian people” were “expelled and banished” upon the “establishment of the Zionist entity” doesn’t mean they have lost their right “to their entire land”; neither does it “entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.”

Note Hamas here disallows rights for the Zionist entity, remaining silent about possible individual rights, perhaps humanitarian ones, of Israelis. Article 3 then ties the country firmly to Islam: “Palestine is an Arab Islamic land.”

Article 4 defines “Palestinians” as “the Arabs who lived in Palestine until 1947, irrespective of whether they were expelled from it, or stayed in it; and every person that was born to an Arab Palestinian father after that date, whether inside or outside Palestine…” This wording is virtually identical with Article 5 of the PLO Charter of 1968 – whose Article 6 then added: “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.” The 2017 Hamas Document does not add this, nor does it clarify whether “the Arabs” included the indigenous Jewish Arabs.

Hamas’ Article 6 does say, though, that one is a “Palestinian… irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation.” So Palestinians include Moslems, Christians, Jews, Druze, and others – so long as they are “Arabs”. Recall that the Palestinian leadership in the 1930s and 1940s had moved to acceptance as citizens of the to-be-established State of Palestine of “all present citizens of (Mandatory) Palestine”, as I have shown in my book The Rape of Palestine: A Mandate Chronology.

Articles 7, 8 & 9 comprise the section “Islam and Palestine”, Article 7 asserting the significance of Palestine for Islam and as well that Palestine “is the birthplace of Jesus Christ”; its “soil contains the remains of thousands of Prophets, Companions and Mujahidin”. Article 8 then states that “Islam – for Hamas – [follows a] justly balanced middle way”, has a “moderate spirit”, and is “a model of coexistence [and] tolerance”. Further, “It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions who can practice their beliefs in security and safety.”

That Hamas’ fight is political rather than ethno-religioUs is further indicated in Article 12: “The Palestinian cause in its essence is a cause of an occupied land and a displaced people.” Article 9 had just sworn to fight “injustice” and “oppressors irrespective of their religion, race, gender or nationality.” (The 1988 Covenant, in Articles 15, 27, 29, 34 & 35, declared the struggle against the Zionists to be no different than previous struggles against the Crusaders and Tatars – neither connected with Judaism.)

Articles 12 and 13 elaborate on the right of return, “a natural right, both individual and collective”, which is “inalienable” – not by “any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international”. Furthermore, receiving due compensation for decades of losses does not “negate or diminish their right to return”.

Article 14 says “The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others.” It also maintains that “The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.”

The Zionist Entity and Jews

Article 16 doubles down on the political nature of its fight: “Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project and not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.”

The irony noticed by any serious student of Zionism is then spelled out: “Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.” This conflation of Jews and Zionists is implicit in practically all public discussions of Hamas, and is of course the false premise for false accusations of anti-semitism.

Chapter 17 further indicates that Jews as Jews are under no threat from Hamas: “Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.” It then addresses a second conflation, namely that of Europe and Western Asia – between where “the persecution of the Jews” took place (Europe), and the Arab and Muslim worlds, whose “heritage” and “history” shows no anti-semitism whatsoever.

May I pause here to attest the utter innocence of the Palestinians in this whole story? They had been ruled by the Ottomans, then ruled by the British, then ruled, expelled, killed and robbed by the Jewish Zionists – without ever having lifted a finger against anybody. Their only crime was wanting to shape their polity and future themselves.

Article 18 correctly lays the blame with the British, the League of Nations and the UN General Assembly – all of whose decisions effecting Palestine’s occupation being “null and void” – and Article 19 states boldly: “There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity” – as done by the PLO.

As for the PLO’s acceptance of a reduced state, Article 20 says: “Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

The rest of Article 20 builds a bridge to the PLO: “However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, along the lines of the June 4, 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to the homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”

This seems to contradict the first part of Article 20, but firstly, this sentence is literally descriptive, claiming only that this vision of such a Palestine on about 20% of historic Palestine, is “a formula of national consensus”. Secondly, Hamas’ conditions for being part of this “consensus” have been stated: The state must be “fully sovereign” and the refugees and displaced must be granted return. Such a two-state solution could not be farther from that agreed by Hamas’ rivals – the more so as it is embedded in text soaked in the undying goal of the liberation of all of Palestine. Article 22 indeed immediately insists on all the named rights. (And of course in reality, the return of even a majority of the refugees and displaced is inconsistent with the further existence of the Zionist entity.)

Resistance

Next, as to the means to liberation, according to Article 23 “Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right”. Articles 25 and 26 are explicit: “Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. (See for instance UNGA Resolutions 37/43 §2 of 3 December 1982 and 38/17 §2 of 22 November 1983, etc.)

Hamas regards “armed resistance” as “the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people”. While Article 13 of the 1988 Covenant says that “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad”, Article 34 says in effect that one has negotiated long enough with the Zionist world, to zero avail, and boldly states, “Nothing can overcome iron except iron.”

Article 27 erases any doubt that it regards a two-state solution as anything more than a point of “national consensus”: “A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Article 28 pledges to honor “pluralism, democracy, national partnership, acceptance of the other and the adoption of dialogue” in its “Palestinian relations”, while Article 29 says of the PLO that as “a national framework for the Palestinian people inside and outside of Palestine [it] should be preserved, developed and rebuilt on democratic foundations…”

Hamas’ fair participation in the elections of 2006-07, and its offer to form a coalition government with Fatah, suggests the sincerity of Article 30, wherein “Hamas stresses the necessity of building Palestinian national institutions on sound democratic principles, foremost among them… free and fair elections”.

Again, however, I am in no position to judge to what degree since 2007 Hamas has respected the rights of those living in Gaza. I know Gazans who severely criticize Hamas on this score, and others who claim there is a reasonable amount of freedom in Gaza.

Article 39 ties some thoughts together: “From a legal and humanitarian perspective, the liberation of Palestine [Article 32: “from the Zionist occupation”] is a legitimate activity, it is an act of self-defense, and it is the expression of the natural right of all peoples to self-determination.”

Article 42 then ends the Document: “Hamas rejects the attempts to impose hegemony on the Arab and Islamic Ummah just as it rejects the attempts to impose hegemony on the rest of the world’s nations and peoples. Hamas also condemns all forms of colonialism, occupation, discrimination, oppression and aggression in the world.”

Contrasts with the 1988 Covenant

The 1988 Covenant was written by Muslim Brotherhood member Abdul Fattah Dukhan in the heat of the First Intifada without much consultation. (It was followed in 1990 by a foundational document reproduced in the Appendix to Khaled Hroub’s definitive 2000 book Hamas: Political Thought and Practice. It contains practically no religious language.)

The 1988 and 2017 statements differ little in framing the fight as one in the name of Islam for the liberation of all of Palestine, while Article 29 of the 1988 Covenant recalls that Palestine had previously repulsed both Crusaders and Tatars; now the colonial force to be gotten rid of is the Zionism – a self-proclaimed Jewish-national project.

Article 32 broadens the focus to “imperialism” and mentions the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – but only to say that it described accurately the expansionism of the Zionist program. A glance at Likud’s founding principles, or the comments of some current cabinet ministers, confirms this, as does the de facto annexation of much of the West Bank since 1974 and current plans to free Eretz Israel of Palestinians down to the Egyptian border.

Compare the Covenant’s Article 22, which takes a stand on the empirical question of whether “the enemy” has wielded its financial and political power for the Zionist cause, answering that it has indeed; note that this article makes no mention of Jews or even Zionists – merely, as in many other Articles, “the enemy”.

Jews

The 2017 Document mentions ‘Jews’ or ‘Jewish’ only 6 times, and only to say that Hamas has no quarrel with Jews or Judaism (Articles 16 & 17). It uses ‘Judaism’ once, pointing out that it is the Zionists who insist on framing the fight in religious or racial terms. (A recent virulent example was Netanyahu’s October 27 call for Israel to annihilate the Amalek(s), saying “… our soldiers are part of a legacy of Jewish warriors that goes back 3,000 years.” For Hamas, by contrast, the battle is not sectarian or racial, but rather political, directed at freeing the Palestinians from ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionists’ (words appearing 19 times), or simply ‘the enemy’.

The 1988 Covenant mentions ‘Jews’ or ‘Jewish’ or ‘Judaism’ 12 times, 6 of which, in Articles 7 & 13, are within hadith quotations which I am not competent to judge. The Preamble speaks of “our struggle with the Jews”, which I believe refers to the current political battle, ‘Jews’ being both how the Zionists refer to themselves and the colloquial term for Israeli, colonizing Jews.

Article 15 similarly colloquially speaks of “the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine”, while Article 20 identifies the perpetrators of “acts… similar to Nazism” once as “the Jews” and once as “the enemy”. It adds by way of reference to the nakba that “Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.”

Article 28: “We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that ‘Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women.’ Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.”

The 1988 Covenant’s Article 31 says Hamas “takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions”, mentioning “Islam, Christianity and Judaism” only to say that “Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions… to coexist in peace and quiet with each other.” This parallels the 2017 Document’s more abstractly formulated Article 8. Finally, Article 32 calls on all those “active in the Palestinian arena” to fight “the warmongering Jews”, a phrase which arguably implies a distinction between warlike and peaceable Jews.

In sum: The Jewishness of the racist Zionist occupier is merely incidental, the ethno-religiosity of the colonizer ancillary, non-essential: the political battle remains the same whoever the conqueror. The Covenant’s Article 29 bolsters this conclusion, calling as it does for international mobilization of “the Islamic people… to perform their role in the decisive battle of liberation, just as they did when they vanquished the Crusaders and the Tatars [Tartars] and saved human civilization.”

Article 34 similarly states: “Thus it was that the Crusaders came with their armies, bringing with them their creed and carrying their Cross. … [B]ut the Moslems … surged out fighting under the leadership of Salah ed-Din al-Ayyubi… and in the end the Crusaders were defeated and Palestine was liberated.”

Article 35 continues, “The present Zionist onslaught has also been preceded by Crusading raids from the West and other Tatar raids from the East. Just as the Moslems faced those raids and planned fighting and defeating them, they should be able to confront the Zionist invasion and defeat it.”

Article 15 regards the post-World War I conquest of greater Syria by France and Britain as a case of Christian colonialism, quoting General Allenby saying “Only now have the Crusades ended” and General Gouraud saying “We have returned, O Salah ed-Din.” That is, the League of Nations run by Britain and France enabled the Zionists to inherit the colonial role in fulfilling the “Zionist project”.

Thus, not only does Hamas speak more often of Zionism and Zionists than it does of Judaism and Jews. The problem with Western outlooks on the Palestinian Other is that it starts with, and puts in the center, the Jewish ethno-religious group. But as indicated by the above-quoted passages, as well as Hamas’ 2017 massive de-emphasis on Judaism, an oppressor is first and foremost – or even solely – an oppressor, whether he comes from Europe, central Asia, Mars, or of any other provenance. Western media and politicians who insist on focusing on the ethno-religious Jewish nature of Israel are willfully committing Orientalism.

The PLO

When it comes to the PLO the two statements of principles differ. In the 1988 Covenant, Article 27 both praised and criticised the PLO: it was the organization “closest to the heart of the Islamic Resistance Movement. It contains the father and the brother, the next of kin and the friend. … Our homeland is one, our situation is one, our fate is one and the enemy is a joint enemy to all of us.”

However, the PLO erred when it “adopted the idea of the secular state. … Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology.” And since “attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies,… with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion… The day the [PLO] adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies.”

Only in its Article 29 does the 2017 Document deal with the PLO, saying only that it is “a national framework for the Palestinian people inside and outside of Palestine. It should therefore be preserved, developed and rebuilt on democratic foundations…”

Otherwise, this Section called ‘The Palestinian political system (Articles 27-34) retreats decisively from the Islamic position of 1988, stressing in Article 28 “pluralism, democracy, national partnership, acceptance of the other and the adoption of dialogue” and in Article 30 “the necessity of building national Palestinian institutions on sound democratic principles, foremost among them are free and fair elections.” Article 31: “[T]he role of the Palestinian Authority [the Oslo entity] should be to serve the Palestinian people…”.

Islam

The Hamas armed attack on Israel beginning on October 7 bears the name ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’, referring of course to a very holy Moslem place in Jerusalem. In the week preceding, Israeli police had enabled over 1,000 Jewish worshippers to enter the Al-Aqsa Compound, a violation of the status quo and as deliberate a provocation as Sharon’s ‘visit’ to that holy place on 28 September 2000.

And recall that in August 1929 violation of this sacred place had been a red line for all Palestinians, not only Moslem ones. But in what sense might a Hamas government be ‘Islamic’? Are Western pundits correct when they fear that Hamas would enforce Sharia in a freed Palestine?

While the 2017 Document’s Article 3 says, “Palestine is an Arab Islamic land”, the 1988 Covenant’s Article 1 says far more religiously that “The Movement’s programme is Islam.” The Covenant’s Article 6 holds: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out.” So the Covenant of 35 years ago does call for an Islamic government of Palestine, but as the section above on the PLO shows, its current position is that it would abide by the will of the voters as it did in 2006-07.

The closest the 1988 Covenant comes to usurping Palestine for Islam is its Article 11: “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day.” Also, “the law governing the land of Palestine is the Islamic Sharia (law)”.

However, Article 11 also includes a sentence which I find puzzling: “[W]ho could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgment Day?” Just as Article 8 of the 2017 Document (just above) inserted into its definition the humble qualifier “for Hamas”, this sentence seems to relativize any claim to absolute truth.

Hamas’ currently valid Document of 2017, on the other hand, is ambiguous on whether it wants what Western media scare-mongeringly call “an Islamic nation-state”. Its Preamble states only that “Palestine is the land of the Arab Palestinian people” – the term ‘Arab’ of course traditionally covering adherents of all three so-called Abrahamic religions; further, “Palestine is the true partnership among Palestinians of all affiliations…” While “Palestine is the spirit of the Ummah”, it is not claimed that the reverse is true, i.e., that the Ummah is the identity of Palestine.

Article 1 states only that Hamas’ own “frame of reference is Islam”, saying nothing about all of Palestine or other Palestinians. Article 3 does however then state that “Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.” Article 6, somewhat in contrast, then asserts the unity of “all Palestinians,… irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation.”

Article 7 adds that “Palestine is at the heart of” both the “Arab” and the “Islamic” Ummah, then recalls it was the “first Qiblah” and was where the Prophet Muhammad “ascended to the upper heavens”. Also, “It is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. Its soil contains the remains of thousands of Prophets, Companions and Mujahidin.” That is, it is “Islamic” in the sense of its importance to Moslems, but not necessarily only to Moslems.

Articles 8 & 9, also dealt with above, are key. “By virtue of its justly balanced middle way and moderate spirit, Islam – for Hamas – provides a comprehensive way of life and an order that is fit for purpose at all times and in all places. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions who can practice their beliefs in security and safety. Hamas also believes that Palestine has always been and will always be a model of coexistence, tolerance and civilizational innovation.” This recalls the tolerant ‘rule’ of Moslems in Andalusian Spain and the Ottoman Empire.

Furthermore, “Hamas believes that the message of Islam upholds the values of truth, justice, freedom and dignity and prohibits all forms of injustice and incriminates oppressors irrespective of their religion, race, gender or nationality.”

As we just saw, Article 16 completely de-ethnicizes the issue by clearly stating that the enemy is Zionism, not “Jews because of their religion”. Finally, likewise as just seen above, there is no way to squeeze an ‘Islamic state’ from the text of Articles 27, 28, 30, 35 & 36, all of which describe Palestine’s political future in terms of democracy.

The name ‘Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya’ already shows that it is the Resistance Movement, not Palestine, which is ‘Islamic’; similarly, Article 8 of the 1988 Covenant refers to itself, not a Palestinian state, when it says that “the Koran [is] its constitution.”

As a supporter of the separation of state and religion (or ethnicity, or ‘nationality’), I do not believe a state or government can simultaneously be democratic and ‘Christian’, ‘Moslem’, ‘Jewish’ or ‘Hindu’. Based on the 2017 text I humbly venture that Hamas struggles to square this circle. But claims of Islamic ‘radicalism’, made either directly or associatively, as when prominent Swiss TV journalist Barbara Lüthi elides Hamas and ISIS by using the term ‘Islamic nation-state’, are certainly false. Such statements reveal profound ignorance of what Hamas actually says.

There is moreover zero evidence for the claim that Hamas wants to kill any Jews because they are Jews, or indeed any Jews who are not in uniform. On the contrary, the evidence examined here from official Hamas statements points to Hamas’ willingness to co-exist with others regardless of their ethnicity or religion. The burden of proof lies with those who allege unstated racist or intolerant intentions on the part of Hamas.