When the government is an NGO: Hamas in Gaza
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are a significant component of modern society. As a rule, they are established to address issues that, in the view of their founders, the state and/or the business sector do not address satisfactorily, should not address at all, or may address in ways that are conflicted. Thus, for example, the founders of Yad Sarah, which lends medical equipment, identified the need to provide such equipment to the public. The government was, of course, aware of this need, but for a variety of reasons, it was convenient for it that the matter be handled by an NGO.
Charitable organizations are not antagonistic to the state. They operate alongside it, filling gaps in governmental or commercial activity. The state acknowledges their importance by providing benefits such as granting tax exemptions to its donors, thereby indirectly financing part of its budget and, at times, directly through various allocations.
By contrast, advocacy and social change organizations addressing issues such as environmental protection, human rights, and related areas that frequently do not necessarily align with the government on policy matters. Moreover, as a matter of strategy, they often prefer to maintain a separation from state mechanisms. Nevertheless, they too are regarded as vital components of the public sphere. Sometimes their donors do not receive tax exemptions, but the legitimacy of their activities is not in question.
The unwritten social contract between the state of Israel and its citizens holds that the state is responsible for all spheres of life. Thus, for example, it may determine how Israeli students are educated, by whom, and what content is taught in the education system—but it cannot simply abdicate responsibility for children’s education.
This is not the case with NGOs. They are free to define their own mission and to choose not to engage in other fields. No one takes issue with the fact that the Society for the Protection of Nature focuses on nature conservation and does not lend medical equipment; that is not why it was founded.
One area in which states are unwilling to permit non-governmental or commercial organizations to operate is in security and the use of force and violence. Generally, an armed non-governmental organization is defined by the state as a criminal or terrorist organization. There are exceptions to this rule, such as private security companies, but a fundamental condition for their lawful existence is that their activities be coordinated with and regulated by the state.
Hamas is by essence a non-governmental movement. As such, it aims to establish an Islamic entity throughout Palestine. The primary means for achieving this goal is jihad. To achieve this, Hamas promotes activities including welfare provision, education, mutual aid, and engagement with other organizations and entities. All of these are means to an end—the realization of the movement’s raison d’être.
The failure to grasp this point is striking, given what is known to date about the government’s and the security establishment’s worldview before October 7, 2023. The notion that Hamas is invested in the economic welfare of Gaza’s residents, that it is engaged in building physical and social infrastructure, that the money earned by Gazans working in Israel constitutes a significant component of a growing Palestinian economy in the Strip, ignores the fundamentally non-governmental nature of Hamas. Therefore, without belittling any of these components, they are secondary or tertiary in priority. What matters to Hamas is the establishment of an Islamic entity over all of Palestine—nothing more, nothing less.
Another aspect that warrants attention is the relationship between Hamas and international NGOs , such as Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, Human Rights Watch, and similar bodies. At first glance, there appears to be an unbridgeable chasm between these organizations and Hamas. The former are Western organizations that espouse universal values; they are secular, civic, and liberal. Hamas is an extreme Islamist military movement, fanatically religious, and ultra-conservative. Yet at the principled level, international NGOs view Hamas as a peer NGO. Accordingly, their criticism is limited to the movement’s actions and the various governing agencies in the Strip. For example, if Hamas members torture prisoners or fire rockets at civilian targets in Israel. On the other hand, they do not hold Hamas responsible for providing food, housing, or healthcare.
Hamas itself views the situation in similar terms. Thus, it would not hesitate to confiscate food for the benefit of its fighters, and the fact that civilians are left hungry would not only fail to trouble it but would serve as a legitimate propaganda tool in pursuit of its goal. Consequently, even though international NGOs are aware of this—and even though Israel has had no foothold in the Gaza Strip for more than two decades—they place responsibility for such matters on Israel. In their view, Israel is the state that controls the Strip, and by virtue of that control is responsible, in their eyes, for nearly everything that occurs there—especially at present, when the civilian infrastructure that functioned in the Strip prior to the war has completely collapsed.
So, what is to be done? First and foremost, it is essential to understand who we are facing. Hamas is a movement with a single, clear objective. Anyone who believes it can be bribed, moderated, or persuaded to change its ways is akin to someone who believes that, in exchange for a generous donation, The Israel Cancer Society will begin encouraging cigarette use.
It is also crucial to understand the relationship between international non-governmental organizations and Hamas. They regard the movement as a peer organization whose path is opposed to theirs, yet it remains an NGO. Consequently, they place responsibility on the state actor that, in their view, controls the Strip. These organizations enjoy open access to mass media around the world, and their influence on public opinion is highly significant—an influence whose consequences are evident in the deterioration of Israel’s international standing.
* I would like to thank my friends and colleagues, Yael Weiss-Rind and Dr Nathanel Flamer, who made important comments on this article’s draft.
