2014年5月29日 星期四

學術研討會發表:哈馬斯政治轉型與抵抗論述 (2003-2006) (2014.5.16)

歐洲台灣青年學者人文社會學會第七屆年會
時間﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽tution press,2014516
地點﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽﷽tution press,:巴黎新索邦第三大學。

發表人:包修平 (Hsiu-Ping, Bao)
英國艾克斯特大學 (University of Exeter
巴勒斯坦研究博士生 (PhD student in Palestine studies)

論文摘要(中文)
本文探討2003年到2006年,哈馬斯的政治轉型與其抵抗論述的關係。哈馬斯全名為「伊斯蘭抵抗運動」(Islamic resistance movement),因過去攻擊以色列,特別是在2002年到2003年期間的自殺炸彈紀錄,遭許多西方國家列入恐怖組織名單。然而在2006125日巴勒斯坦舉行議會大選,出乎眾人意料,哈馬斯成為選舉最大贏家。
哈馬斯在2006年選舉之後,為了適應新環境的挑戰,展現以往不同的樣貌。雖然哈馬斯不承認以色列的合法性,卻使用國際社會理解的語言,如利用國際法,強調巴勒斯坦人自衛與爭取權利的正當性。另一方面,哈馬斯提出一套與以色列和平共存的方案:只要以色列能遵照國際法,完全退出加薩、西岸與東耶路撒冷,以及同意巴勒斯坦難民回歸權,到時巴勒斯坦將在此地建國,與以色列簽署10年的休戰協議。雖然哈馬斯的和平提案仍未受到外界重視,也被外界視為一種「摧毀以色列」的戰略考量。但不可否認在2006年之後,哈馬斯與以色列之間的衝突已經明顯減少。以色列境內幾乎沒有自殺炸彈紀錄;哈馬斯刻意減少宗教與抵抗的用語,轉為向外界強調恢復巴勒斯坦人權利的正當性。
許多學者認為哈馬斯在政治上的轉型並非偶然。如在2003年到2006年期間,即使哈馬斯發動多起自殺炸彈攻擊,但在外在與內在環境改變情況下逐漸放棄暴力路線,朝向巴勒斯坦政治整合。不過當前學術文獻似乎忽視哈馬斯如何看待其本身的政治轉型與其意義。

本文根據2003年到2006年哈馬斯領導階層的訪問文獻,發現哈馬斯依據其「抵抗論述」與「抵抗方案」,適應與回應外在環境的轉變與挑戰。雖然這種抵抗論述尚未受到英文文獻重視,但本文認為,該抵抗論述可以理解哈馬斯思維,為何不願意與以色列妥協,以及哈馬斯如何看待佔領問題、對和平與衝突的看法與對民主的態度。另外,該抵抗論述可解釋為何早從2004年初,哈馬斯已開始考慮參與巴勒斯坦內部政治整合,最後於2006年初的民主選舉成為當地最大政治勢力。


Hamas’ political transformation and its resistance discourse (2003-2006)
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to examine Hamas’ political transformation by scrutinizing its resistance discourse between 2003 and 2006. Hamas is an acronym of the ‘Islamic resistance movement’, which was founded in 1987. Due to its past record of suicide bombings inside Israel, Hamas has, in the past, been viewed by some Western countries as a terrorist organization. However since the election of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) held in January 2006 Hamas unexpectedly had the capability of forming a government in its own right, since it won the majority of votes.
After 2006, although Hamas has not been recognized by Western countries because Hamas had refused to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and the renouncement of violence against it, as an elected government Hamas has demonstrated its pragmatism and flexibility in response to reality. For example, International law and resolutions agreed by the security council of the United Nations are often raised by Hamas’ leadership in order to justify its right to defend itself as well as to seek moral support from the International community. On the other hand, Hamas has proposed a peace plan to Israel: If Israel evacuated from Gaza, the West Bank and the East Jerusalem and accepted the right of return of Palestinian refugees according to the International resolutions, then Hamas would be willing to cease hostilities and to coexist with Israel in terms of a 10-year truce. In spite of this, the peace proposal has not only been rejected but it has been treated by Israel and others as a strategy that is meant to put in place the ‘destruction of Israel’. But there is no denying that the conflict between Hamas and Israel has dramatically decreased compared with the period between 2003 and 2006, inasmuch as there is no record of suicide bombing undertaken by Hamas. At the same time, Hamas has stressed the necessity and legitimacy of the restoration of Palestinian rights rather than military resistance. 
Many scholars believe that Hamas’ transformation is not accidental. In reality, Hamas has gradually changed its discourse from the intensity of the armed struggle to its political participation in the period from 2003 to 2006. This transformation was considered to be in response to the changes in the external and internal environment. The way that Hamas itself interprets the transition and its implications, is beyond the scope of the existing scholarship.
This paper argues that the ‘resistance discourse’ or the ‘resistance project’ is the means by which Hamas adapted to a new environment. This discourse is prevalent in a large number of Hamas’ leaders’ interviews between 2003 and 2006, which could enable readers to understand further Hamas’ ideology with regard to its rejection of Israel and how Hamas’ perspective on various issues such as: the Israeli occupation, the concept of peace and war and its view on democracy and election. Moreover, this discourse could explain the root cause of Hamas’ decision to participate in politics in early 2004, a move which has also been neglected by academic research.

沒有留言:

張貼留言