By Taghreed Saadeh
Politics is a battle that closely resembles war in its precision and organization. It unfolds in successive rounds that may not always be visible to the public. Its contours can be discerned by observing shifts in positions and connecting regional and international developments. Often, when a project fails at the negotiating table, it is later reintroduced through a newly created reality on the ground. In this sense, politics is a demanding form of warfare that cannot be treated lightly.
During the first presidency of Donald Trump, the initiative known as the “Deal of the Century” was introduced as an attempt to reshape the Palestinian cause according to a clear American–Israeli vision. At that time, the Palestinian National Authority rejected the proposal, and President Mahmoud Abbas paid the price for that stance through political and financial isolation, the suspension of aid to the Authority and to the Palestinian people, and sustained pressure from regional and international actors, effects that remain visible to this day.
While the Palestinian Authority was Sanctioned for its refusal, the events of October 7 created a new reality. The incident was not merely a military confrontation; it appeared to provide an opportunity for Trump and Netanyahu to reorder the situation on the Palestinian ground. Hamas contributed to opening this door, as the escalation produced a new international context that reshaped strategic calculations and introduced security arrangements with direct American involvement.
The paradox is striking, while the Palestinian Authority endured sanctions and isolation for its declared political position, Hamas continued to operate with comparatively broader financial channels, under Israeli oversight and wide media exposure. This raises a critical question, how can a faction portrayed as confronting occupation maintain relative freedom of movement, while the Authority that rejected the American proposal faced severe constraints?
What Hamas did, viewed as part of the broader Muslim Brotherhood project in the region, was not detached from the regional context. Rather, it constituted a pivotal moment that paved the way for deeper American intervention in Palestine. An action presented as a major confrontation ultimately produced a new reality that allowed Washington to enter the Palestinian file more directly under the banners of security and political restructuring, at a time when such direct intervention had previously faced significant obstacles.
While the event was promoted by some as an extraordinary achievement, its political consequences opened the door to reengineering the Palestinian landscape according to international equations that had not been feasible before.
What is unfolding in Palestine today is therefore not merely an internal military or political struggle. It reflects a complex convergence of Israeli and American policies, the instrumentalization of Islamist factions during a volatile regional moment, and external projects seeking to redefine control over Palestinian decision-making and resources.
Most troubling are the attempts by Hamas to circumvent these realities and to present itself either as a victim or as the author of a historic triumph, while avoiding a transparent national reckoning over the consequences of its actions. Instead of confronting the profound costs borne by the Palestinian people, the discourse often moves past them, as though such far-reaching repercussions were incidental and unworthy of serious reflection or accountability.
9 Total Count
