Once more, Hamas distinguishes itself

Confirmation that Khalid Meshaal will not contest another term at the helm of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) has prompted much speculation about his likely successor. The transitional process has evidently been hindered after the political bureau moved its base from Damascus. The picture is, though, becoming clearer. For practical reasons, it now appears that the new leader will come from the external ranks of the movement. When completed, this handover would be yet another affirmation of the movement’s maturity and ability to adjust to the enormous challenges it faces at home and abroad.

There is no doubt that the charismatic Abul Waleed, as Meshaal is called affectionately, will be a hard act to follow. He has, over the past 16 years, won both the respect and admiration of not only the movement’s members, but also heads of states across the region and beyond. In Palestine, especially, he is often referred to as the “living martyr”, having survived an Israeli assassination attempt in 1997.

The attempt by Mossad agents to poison Meshaal in Amman was seen by the late King Hussein as the ultimate act of treachery by the Israeli Prime Minister then, as now, Benjamin Netanyahu. If Meshaal dies on Jordanian soil, the King warned, the peace treaty will be at stake. Paul McGeough records in detail in his book, Kill Khalid, how Netanyahu was humiliated and forced to hand over the antidote to the poison.

Since then, Meshaal has successfully steered Hamas through one of its most difficult periods. When he steps down from his current position, he will continue to serve the cause for which he has dedicated his entire life. While it is too early to speak of legacy, there is a sober message for Palestinian politicians, in particular, and Arabs in general. Khaled Meshaal’s tenure belies the common perception that in this part of the world political leaders only leave office when they die or when they are overthrown.

This is not the case with Meshaal. Since the initial announcement of his intention to stand down several months ago, many have appealed to him to remain for another four year term. Hamas’s internal statutes allow for this. Indeed, there are reports that soon after the 25 January revolution in Egypt, a meeting took place in Cairo between Ahmad al Ju’bari and Meshaal in which the former conveyed a letter from Muhammad Dayf, the commander of the movement’s military wing, urging him of “the necessity to remain in his office”, and confirming that he had the full support of the Izz al Din al Qassam Brigades.

None of these entreaties succeeded. Given the political changes underway in the region, Abul Waleed believes that the time is right to create opportunities to inject “new blood into the movement”. Although his decision is rare, if not unprecedented among Palestinian leaders, it bears a striking similarity to recent changes within Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. In 2009, the then supreme guide of the movement, Mohamed Mahdi Akef, stepped down and made way for a new leader. Notwithstanding these developments, critics of the Islamic movement still claim that its successes in national elections will lead to dictatorships.

In the absence of an organisational infrastructure and functional institutions, the drift towards autocracy is all too easy. However, time and again Hamas has distinguished itself by showing that it has the mechanisms and is mature enough to nurture its leaders. In his old Damascus office, Meshaal had an imposing photo of the movement’s leaders who were assassinated by the Israelis. They included its founder Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, Salah Shehadah, Abdul Aziz al Rantissi, Jamal Mansour and Ismail Abu Shenab. Their deaths did not cripple the movement. On the contrary, even the Israelis now acknowledge that for every one of them who was killed, ten others arose to take their place. While they did not bring experience with them, they soon learnt the ropes and mastered their skills.

With the handover of the leadership imminent, Hamas appears to be in a relatively safe position both within the region and internationally. Meshaal’s personal diplomatic initiatives have lifted the blanket of political isolation which Israel and its allies have sought to impose on the movement.

In retrospect, 16 years at the head of any resistance movement is bound to reveal highs and lows. Critics point out that the movement has paid too high a price for contesting the parliamentary elections in 2006. Yes, it won convincingly, but the outcome was the end of the resistance in the West Bank and containment of the movement in the Gaza Strip. Worse still has been the entrenchment of what is perhaps the most dangerous divide in the Palestinian national cause.

Of course the transition comes at a most delicate period in Palestine’s history and that of the movement. Nevertheless, with its organisational structure and intertwined leadership from the West Bank, Gaza and abroad intact, the ground has been prepared for Hamas to embark on a new era of continuity and change.

Even at this eleventh hour, efforts are still underway to persuade Abul Waleed to stay put; they are not likely to succeed. He is convinced that his decision chimes in with the general trend across the region to institutionalise regular and peaceful transition of political power. His close aide Ezzet Al Rishq says that Meshaal has laid down a marker for other leaders to follow. Few, though, have his strength of character to walk away from high office when they are at the height of their prowess.