By Taghreed Saadeh
Political disagreement is a natural reality in every country. No nation expects its parties to agree on everything, nor is there any national movement without competition or political rivalry. This is the logic of politics not the logic of “comprehensive reconciliation” that has consumed the Palestinian arena for two decades without producing any real results.
In the Palestinian case, however, political disagreement has transformed into an existential conflict and then into a geographic and institutional division. The reason is that part of the political landscapespecifically Hamas treated the Palestinian Authority as a prize to be seized and defended by force.
The dispute between Fatah and Hamas originally emerged over the national project, a legitimate and natural dispute. But what followed was not merely a difference in vision; it was a military coup carried out by Hamas, the use of force, the killing of Fatah members, and the establishment of a parallel authority outside the national framework Palestinians had collectively agreed upon for decades.
Since that day, we have wandered through twenty years of dialogue committees, reconciliation documents, and agreements signed at night only to collapse the next morning. The reason is simple, reconciliation has never been an objective in itself but rather a tool for renegotiating influence or improving the conditions of staying in power.
Today, after years of division and repeated wars in Gaza, Hamas continues to make political concessions to retain power despite the revolutionary rhetoric it projects. This became clear when the movement announced a ceasefire and its members reappeared in Gaza’s streets without fear, carrying out executions of their rivals. These scenes reflected understandings with Israel and the United States that were never officially disclosed but can be inferred from statements by Hamas leaders and aligned analysts.
Such behavior reveals that the issue is not a mere “political disagreement” between Hamas and Fatah but a clash between two fundamentally different projects,: A national project based on the PLO and collective decision-making, and a partisan project rooted in a regional ideological network namely, the Muslim Brotherhood. In the face of this contradiction, talk of “full reconciliation” becomes a political illusion.
In every functioning political system worldwide, disputes are settled through elections, not endless reconciliation committees. Total consensus among parties does not exist anywhere, so why has it become a Palestinian prerequisite? Elections exist to answer two simple questions: Who governs? And who grants legitimacy?
Comprehensive elections presidential, legislative, and Palestinian National Council are the only path to restoring political unity. Insisting on superficial reconciliation and repetitive dialogue is merely a drain on energy and time, the cost of which is borne solely by the Palestinian people.
Hamas and Fatah are not required to agree on everything; they are required to respect the people’s decision when it is expressed through the ballot box.
The most critical point today is that Hamas is seeking political reconciliation while knowing that its public image is still tied to “resistance.” Yet it has not been honest with its base about the profound shifts in its political conduct or about the understandings it has reached with regional and international actors, including its direct contacts with the United States.
This is why Hamas appears publicly opposed to the new decree issued by President Mahmoud Abbas, which stipulates that adherence to the PLO’s political program and international legitimacy is a prerequisite for participation in the upcoming presidential, legislative, and National Council elections. This decree places Hamas before a clear choice: either it publicly commits to the national program as it stands, or it refuses and excludes itself from the electoral process.
The irony, however, is that what Hamas denounces publicly is precisely the direction it is moving toward behind closed doors. Internally, it promotes a discourse about being “ready for political participation,” without acknowledging to its supporters that any real participation would require embracing commitments it currently rejects in its public rhetoric.
Here lies the core problem, factions seeking power while withholding from the people the political clarity they deserve.
19 Total Count
