With the shock announcement of the prospective stepping down of Khaled Meshaal, the balance of power within Hamas appears to have shifted from Damascus to Gaza, writes Saleh Al-Naami Even the closest people to Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas's politburo, did not expect the bombshell announcement he made during the group's Shura Council meeting in Khartoum on 30 December 2011, when he suddenly announced he would not accept being nominated for another term in office. Elections inside the group will take place in six months to choose members of the group's Shura Council and politburo. Sources told Al-Ahram Weekly that Meshaal did not explain his reasons, only stating that he wants new blood in the movement and that he would continue to serve his people and group wherever he is. Meshaal's announcement, after serving as politburo chief since 1996, triggered heated debate inside the Shura Council as several Shura members attempted to change his mind. The meeting ended without resolving the issue. According to Hamas protocol, anyone who is a member of the politburo cannot nominate themselves for the position of director. Instead, one or more of the 59 Shura Council members must make the nomination and then vote. It took two weeks after the five-day Shura Council meeting for news to leak about Meshaal's decision, raising questions. Was Meshaal serious in his decision or was this an attempt to force the Shura Council to demonstrate their support, especially that the move came amid a public clash between Meshaal and some Hamas leaders, especially at home, most prominently Mahmoud Al-Zahhar? If Meshaal is serious, what are the reasons that pushed him to this decision? And how will this move affect the balance of power inside the group? Khalil Al-Haya, a member of Hamas's politburo, said that the majority of the group's leaders and cadres want Meshaal to stay for another term, adding that Meshaal's request is being examined by the group's institutions. Al-Haya added that the Shura Council would take the final decision on whether to accept or reject Meshaal's request. "Many members of the Shura Council pleaded with him to reverse his decision, because of his charisma, influence and positive activism," he said. "Also in Arab and international arenas." But there are other members of the politburo and Shura Council who do not share Al-Haya's sentiments towards Meshaal, and have clear differences with Meshaal, most prominently Al-Zahhar. Disputes between the two were made public after recent reconciliation meetings in Cairo, when Al-Zahhar directly criticised Meshaal for supporting popular resistance and expressed concern over reconciliation efforts with Fatah -- something Meshaal had clearly endorsed. Hence, Al-Zahhar's reaction to news that Meshaal wants to step down was cool. "Khaled Meshaal's resignation as director of the politburo will not affect the group's work or policies," he said. Other Hamas members were more optimistic in reacting to Meshaal's announcement, saying that the leadership of the group needed rejuvenation via new leaders. Yehia Moussa, deputy leader of Hamas MPs, said that if Meshaal's decision is final this proves that "Hamas wants to rejuvenate itself with new blood." Moussa told the Weekly: "We do not want to be a copy of former Arab regimes that do not change unless the president dies, there is a violent coup or a popular uprising, as witnessed recently." Moussa added that the decision opens the door for new ideas in dealing with the challenges of serving national goals, emphasising that change was part of the game of democracy. He added that there are recent precedents in Islamist political action that demonstrates this is part of the Muslims Brotherhood's doctrine, such as the resignation of former Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mohamed Mahdi Akef who was replaced by incumbent Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie. Commenting on how the decision would influence the balance of power between the group's leaders at home (Gaza) and abroad (Syria), Moussa said that focusing on the balance of power at home and abroad was a mistake. "Hamas has its own codes and rules for action that are regulated by constitutional consultative institutions that have the final word," he explained. "Meanwhile, executive offices carry out these directives. Referencing the same consultative bodies does not allow for conflicts and axes of power. Differences of opinion are natural and healthy, and do not reflect any turbulence." Nonetheless, observers differ on whether Meshaal is genuine about his decision. Some believe it is only a manoeuvre to demonstrate the extent that the leaders of the group support him, while curtailing the margin of manoeuvrability of his opponents inside the group. They explain that Meshaal could have made his decision public in front of the masses, which would prevent those who want him to stay (and they are many) from changing his mind. But there are objective reasons as to why Meshaal could have taken this decision, most importantly that Hamas leaders at home have become more influential than Hamas leaders abroad as a result of several Arab, regional and domestic developments. There is no doubt that a key transformation that has boosted leaders in Gaza and curtailed the ability of Meshaal and his colleagues abroad to manoeuvre are the revolutions for democratic transformation that are sweeping across the Arab world, including in Syria. The Syrian revolution has curtailed the flexibility of leaders abroad and forced them to seek a new home outside Syria. The leadership abroad is in an awkward position because while it realises that the popular bases of Hamas, like the grassroots supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, wholeheartedly support the Syrian revolution, the leaders headquartered in Damascus cannot openly express this position. At the same time, one of the key weaknesses of leaders abroad is their diminished ability to provide funds for the group. Iran has scaled down its financial support of the group in an angry response to the position by the leadership abroad towards the Syrian revolution. Tehran expected Hamas to take a similar position as Hizbullah, which has become a mouthpiece of the Syrian regime and a fierce defender of Damascus. Meshaal's ability to manoeuvre was greatly diminished because no Arab capital is willing to shelter him and his colleagues abroad. His hopes to move to Jordan were dashed recently when King Abdullah's reception for him in Amman was mostly cool. The Arab Spring also weakened the leadership abroad since the victory of Islamist movements in recent elections in several Arab countries helped loosen the political siege on Hamas. One of the main missions of the leaders abroad was to overcome the repercussions of this siege. A case in point is the recent tour by Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh to a number of Arab states, especially his visit to Tunisia where he was given a hero's welcome. Other factors that undermined the leadership abroad is the prisoners' exchange deal that released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including charismatic leaders in the group such as Yehia Al-Senwar who has a very large popular base among Hamas supporters. The balance of power inside Hamas has been influenced by many factors. Since its creation and until the failed attempt on Meshaal's life in the summer of 1997, when Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was released, leaders inside Gaza had taken final decisions on the group's direction. But after this incident, leaders abroad played a bigger role in providing political cover and funds for the group and their influence rose. Today, the winds are turning once again. While it is true that any new director of the group's politburo will be a nominee from abroad, as a respectful nod to the fact that the larger demographic of Palestinians live outside the borders of Palestine, this does not change the fact that the balance of power has now clearly tipped in favour of the leaders in Gaza.
