In the Middle East, each interested group likes to claim moral superiority to rationalize their policies, and their actions.  As of late, this position has often been established by referencing the charter of countervailing groups.  However, many of these same individuals refuse to give credence to what exists in their own charter that might be hindering the peace process.  It is important to compare and contrast the different charters, which often elucidate the intent of each group far more than their current rhetoric.

Hamas Charter

The charter that is most often referenced is that of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas).  A political group started in the eighties with the overarching intent of liberating Palestine.  Relevant portions of the Hamas charter are as follows:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

The intents, and methods of Hamas are clear.  However, it would be irresponsible not to at least point out that the calls for the destruction of Israel were removed from the Hamas election platform.  In fact, the Hamas election platform supports a Palestine, and thus two state solution, with respect to the 1967 borders, which are often used as a standard during peace negotiations.  The platform only calls directly for the elimination of the occupation, and not the destruction of the Israeli state.

Fatah Charter

Because of Fatah’s recent interest in working with Israel, US and EU towards a resolution, their charter has often gone unacknowledged, and is considered moderate when compared to Hamas.  However, if we are to give credence to Hamas’ charter, especially in light of the changes they made to their election platform, it would only be fair to consider the Fatah charter as well.

Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

This might seem fairly innocuous at first, and could be interpreted to mean the eradication of Zionist influence within Palestine, however, the true meaning is elucidated further down.

Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.

In fact, the charter further references the desire for Jerusalem to be the capital city, which is of disputed territory as well.

If taken at face value, although the language is not as strong regarding the methods by which to procure the Palestinian state – the intentions of Fatah could not be clearer.

Likud Platform

One charter that rarely is referenced is the platform of Likud.  This charter is important, if not more important than the charters of Hamas and Fatah, because the peace process is often defined by the demands of Israel.

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.

Based on the Likud charter, Israel refuses to recognize an autonamous and sovereign Palestinian state, but more so, refuses to recognize an established Palestinian state west of the Jordan river, which would make Gaza a particular region of interest during negotiations.

It is important when analyzing the different interests involved, that each group is researched with equanimity.  Fair and equitable analysis is vital to a resolution in the current Mid-East crisis.

Popularity: 78% [?]