By Taghreed Saadeh
What many fail to distinguish is the difference between the Palestinian right to resist occupation and the exploitation of that right to establish an Islamist rule dominated by a faction with external loyalties. This is precisely what Hamas does, it uses the banner of resistance to consolidate its political power, renewing its positions in ways that tighten its grip over national institutions and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
There is a clear difference between Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both Islamist movements, yet fundamentally distinct. Islamic Jihad emerged from within the Palestinian cause itself. Despite its ideological orientation, it has never sought to overthrow or replace the PLO. It remains a Palestinian faction that adapts to reality, cooperates internally, and maintains a consistent path of resistance. Hamas, on the other hand, has followed the Muslim Brotherhood’s transnational model, forging regional alliances that have led to selective and self-serving political behavior.
Hamas has used resistance, a legitimate tool against occupation, for political purposes. This manipulation has often brought it into violent confrontation with Islamic Jihad, while Hamas continues to restrict others whenever their actions do not align with its own interests. These internal clashes, sometimes bloody, have weakened the broader Palestinian struggle, while Islamic Jihad has sought to keep its focus on the fight against the occupation.
Despite the immense damage inflicted on the Palestinian people and the regional and international calls, including from Arab, Islamic, and European states, for Hamas to step down and withdraw from power, the movement appears to be preparing for its next round. Just yesterday, senior Hamas official Mohammad Nazzal declared, “Elections will determine who governs and manages the affairs of the Palestinian people… We will not impose ourselves by force of arms or by de facto control. Elections will decide who leads the Palestinian people.”
These statements carry an implicit threat about the political future of Palestinians, especially in the phrase “We will not impose ourselves by force of arms”, as if the use of force remains an ever-present option.
Hamas continues to claim that its struggle is for the sake of the Palestinian people, yet experience shows otherwise, it failed to protect civilians, chose to hide its forces in tunnels, and left the population to pay the price alone, while launching sporadic operations merely to project an image of resistance.
Since my interview with Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in the late 1990s, when he granted me an exclusive statement acknowledging, for the first time, Hamas’s willingness to accept a long-term truce with Israel, the movement has consistently promoted the language of hudna (truce). It appears eager to reach an agreement with the occupation, one that ensures its continued rule and entrenches an Islamist system aligned with the Brotherhood’s vision.
Those who defend Hamas as the sole bearer of the resistance option overlook how that option has been repeatedly misused with external Brotherhood backing and non-Palestinian interests to pursue political deals that serve its leadership rather than the people. The policies of Hamas have profoundly reshaped Palestinian life, deepening division and prolonging national suffering. Meanwhile, the movement remains perched atop the political scene, convinced that its military operations and power plays are the path to salvation.
35 Total Count
