A New Generation of Islamists

Empowerment Or Liberation? The Conflict Of Generations

The implication of these factors posed both objective and subjective challenges to the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB needed to reassess its position in Palestinian society and politics to survive and remain relevant. The objective circumstances, particularly, the crises of the Palestinian political forces, the lack of faith from large segments of the Palestinian community increased the pressure on the MB to be an alternative force to lead the political and military struggles in Palestine, whilst meeting the challenges posed by the Israeli occupation. The subjective circumstances meanwhile were caused by internal pressures to rethink its priorities and positions on the armed struggle after the establishment of the IJM, besides the threat of losing its supporters and members in favor of the IJM, whose policy on the armed struggle was supported by a large segment of the community. These subjective dilemmas facing the MB, may be able to explain the conflict between the two movements to lead the Islamic trend in Palestine. Subsequently their relationship became characterized by competition, rivalry, and dissent. (Sheikh Khalil, 2011, pp. 244-247)

The schism involving the founders of Islamic Jihad from the main body of the MB can be seen as a conflict between generations over orientations, priorities, and policies of the Muslim Brotherhood. (Sheikh Khalil, 2011, p. 355) This debate affected both the leadership and grassroots members of MB, a debate over the efficiency of their adopted strategies and policies to deal with the Palestinian cause, and the role of their movement in the national struggle. Further, it revolved around on the efficacy of Islamization as a prerequisite to Jihad in light of the deteriorating situation in Palestine. (Abu Amr, 1989, p. 50) As a result, two major trends that are poles apart emerged within the Muslim Brotherhood. The older leadership generation, who were considered the first leading group of the MB, defended their traditional view of the necessity to complete the systematic and slow transformation of the society as the right approach to achieve their vision, regardless of the question of time. Meanwhile, the younger generation, or the Revolutionary Generation, who were well-educated, were influenced by the revolutionary thoughts of Sayyid Qutb,¹ and inspired by the struggles of other Islamic figures, adopted the call to change the nonviolent policies of the MB towards Israel and to launch an organized Jihad. This generation criticized the strategy of Islamization at the expense of military action as per the policies of other Palestinian factions. (Graham, 2009, p. 49) In the face of the rigid policies of the MB, this generation struggled against the different trends within the MB, whether those who were late in launching a process of self-understanding and considering the variable changes, or those who were focusing on applying part of the obligations of Islam and neglected other obligations such as practicing Jihad. (Jihada & Sadiq, 1983).

The MB proceeded to re-formulate its priorities, trying to address the internal pressures on the issue of armed struggle, as well as the need to develop new mechanisms of decision-making and problem solving, especially to deal with the major strategies of the MB. The latter was entrusted to a new body called the Shura (the consultation) council. On the armed struggle, the MB reached a solution that combined various methods targeting both empowerment and liberation whilst trying to overcome any contradiction between them. The timeline to begin the armed struggle however remains subject to the readiness of the movement in terms of its military and human capacity. (Hroub K., 2000, p. 36) This constituted the third stage of the activities pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood (1981-1987). It was characterized by preparing for military confrontation with Israel. It also began distributing the roles between the external and internal leadership. The external leadership played a political, financial and public relations role, whilst the internal leadership led the military action. This stage witnessed the formation of two military and security apparatuses in 1983, the Palestinian Mujahedeen, led by Sheikh Salah Shehadeh (who later became the leader of the military brigades of Hamas, Izz al-Din al-Qassam), and the security apparatus, Majd Organization, led by Yahya al-Senwar. (Abuirshaid, 2013, p. 115)