By Taghreed Saadeh
I find it troubling that any criticism directed at a public figure who holds positions close to Hamas or opposes the Palestinian Authority is portrayed as a “political assassination” or a “suspicious campaign.” At the same time, organized defense campaigns often coordinated behind the scenes, as has been the case with Mustafa Barghouti reveal a fear of criticism more than they demonstrate the strength of the position being defended.
Criticism is a legitimate right, and no public figure should be above accountability. If simply expressing observations or raising questions is labeled as an attack or an assassination attempt, how can we exercise our right to hold leaders accountable? And how can we distinguish between objective criticism and blind political loyalty?
Furthermore, the defense of Mustafa Barghouti by certain Palestinian and non-Palestinian parties will not change the awareness of Palestinians regarding what is happening on the ground. The Palestinian people are capable of recognizing realities for themselves, and they cannot be persuaded through media campaigns or political alignments that serve one faction over another.
What truly surprised me was the position taken by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA), when they issued a statement describing his critics as part of a “suspicious campaign.” This position reflects a factional mindset in which criticizing any figure associated with the opposition is automatically viewed as a suspicious act. Yet some of these same groups do not hesitate to level accusations against the Palestinian Authority camp, including allegations that reach the level of treason or collaboration.
This contradiction raises a legitimate question, Why is criticism considered a right when it is directed at the Palestinian Authority and sometimes escalates into accusations of betrayal and collaboration, while it becomes a “suspicious campaign” when it targets figures associated with the opposition?
This is not the first time that intensive defense campaigns have been launched in support of Mustafa Barghouti, creating the impression that any criticism directed at him is treated as an attempt at political assassination rather than as a normal part of public debate and accountability. The irony is that some of these forces describe themselves as democratic, while democracy should be based on accepting criticism and responding with arguments not on accusing critics of having hidden agendas or questioning their motives.
What happened in the case of Mustafa Barghouti has contributed to deepening Palestinian divisions and reinforced a dangerous idea that criticizing a political current or figure perceived as close to Hamas is equivalent to betrayal or collaboration, while harsh accusations including accusations of betrayal against Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are considered acceptable. This is a culture that cannot be ignored, because it undermines the foundations of healthy political life and transforms political disagreement into a battle of mutual accusations against anyone who holds a different opinion within the Palestinian political landscape. And, for the record, this applies equally in all directions.
Mustafa Barghouti’s positions, which have appeared aligned with Hamas, were not necessarily a defense of Gaza as much as they reflected a political choice that serves his presence and political standing. Likewise, frequent media appearances are not achievements in themselves, nor do they automatically represent service to the Palestinian cause. The cause is larger than individuals and cannot be reduced to the number of times someone appears on television or to the construction of a particular media image especially when the pursuit of publicity becomes a familiar pattern that many Palestinians recognize in Barghouti’s political approach.
The responsibility lies with those who sign such statements, especially representatives of forces that are part of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is supposed to remain a space for political diversity and respect for differences of opinion and criticism. The goal should not be to protect individuals from criticism, but rather to protect Palestinian political life from a culture of accusation and exclusion directed at all sides.
12 Total Count
