-OpEd-
CAIRO — Hamas’ political leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated because he belonged to the Palestinian people and because he was a Palestinian leader. Israel assassinated him [editor’s note: the Israeli government has not confirmed or denied responsibility] just as it assassinated many Palestinian leaders from across the political arena.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Assassinations are part of Israel’s brutal, racist, colonial policy, and part of its policy of genocide against the Palestinians. Yet that fact has been ignored and turned into an issue of unhealthy debate between Palestinians and Syrians.
There are several possible reasons for this debate: Hamas’ close ties with Iran; the catastrophic repercussions of the Oct. 7 attack, especially for Palestinians in Gaza; or the ideological nature of Hamas. The problem is that disagreement is not governed by rules or by political or moral values or standards.
Four reasons
That can be explained, first, by the political vacuums in Gaza and Syria (to a greater degree); Palestinians and Syrians have no political references, national consensus, or entities with a significant representative position — if we exclude Fatah and Hamas in Gaza.
Second, there is growing frustration among both Palestinians and Syrians, who are experiencing devastating, painful, tragic and harsh catastrophes, in every sense of the word — and who lack a better horizon.
Third, political discourse is dominated by simplistic and absolute dualities — one is either with me or against me, a patriot or traitor, believer or infidel — as each party claims to possess the truth. This is one of the most important dilemmas in Arab political thinking — across all ideological currents.
The division was among Palestinians themselves, and among Syrians themselves.
Fourth, there is a resorting to emotions, tribalism and the spirit of revenge in everything, with the adoption of the victimhood discourse. It’s an equation of tragedy for tragedy, and victims for victims, which is also an unjust and arbitrary equation.
These factors were all present in discussions over the assassination of Haniyeh. But this time, divisions were not between Syrians, who see their cause as a central issue, and Palestinians, who see their cause as the central issue. Rather, the division was among Palestinians themselves, and among Syrians themselves.
Some Palestinians have criticized Haniyeh for his political position and for his movement’s Oct. 7 attack, which Israel has exploited to wage a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, and to strengthen its hegemony over the Palestinians from the river to the sea.
As for the Syrians, some criticizes Hamas leadership for their alliance with Iran. That includes Haniyeh’s consideration of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, as a martyr for Jerusalem when the Iranian regime was responsible for killing and displacing millions of Syrians.
Debaters’ failure
Those who got involved in the debate over Haniyeh’s assassination failed to distinguish between their criticism of Hamas’ leadership — its political and military choices, its external alliances, which is legitimate and natural — and the fact that Israel assassinated Haniyeh for its own reasons.
Israel kills, displaces and destroys Palestinians because it is a colonial, racist and genocidal state. Palestinian and Syrian critics of Hamas could have condemned Haniyeh’s assassination in principle, while at the same time expressing their disagreement with Hamas.
Some Hamas critics ignore the existence of armed Islamic factions that have harmed the Syrian revolution and the national consensus of the Syrian people. That does not justify the brutality of the regime and its ally Iran and its militias against the Syrians, nor does it obscure the legitimacy of the Syrian people’s pursuit of freedom, dignity, justice and political change.
Israel has benefited from this situation.
It can be concluded that the victim remains a victim, while the political and military choices of the existing forces are a matter related to the degree of development of the society in question and the maturity of its political entities. The criticism can be accepted or understood given Iran’s support to Hamas, and that the destruction of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, was due to the dominance of Iran and its militias. Israel has benefited from this situation.
Some see that Iran supports Hamas as a way to enhance its regional influence in the Middle East, as many Iranian leaders consider that their state dominates several Arab capitals (Sanaa, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and some add Gaza). As for the reservations about the ideological nature of Hamas, this does not mean that it is affiliated with Iran, or with the militias that operate as regional arms for Iran, such as Hezbollah.
Hamas, which was established as an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, is part of the political Islam movements, and expresses a current among Palestinians. And for various reasons, it found support from Iran.
Hamas’ problem
The problem with Hamas lies in its emphasis on its character as an Islamic and religious movement at the expense of its character as a political and national movement; its emphasis on its character as an authority at the expense of its character as a liberation movement; its exaggeration of its capabilities; and its reliance in its political and combative choices on Iran and its militias.
It is worth noting that there are Palestinians criticizing Hamas for its ideological character, or its military choices, including the Oct. 7 attack. They went so far as to view the Oslo Accords as a good choice, as if the position of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and its choices were the safest and best for Palestinians. It is also as if Palestinians have no other options than Hamas and Fatah.
The problem is related to the lack of the meaning of the values of freedom, dignity and justice, as moral and political values that must be resorted to or protected. Those values are the essence of the human meaning of the struggle for a better life, whether in national liberation movements or in the struggle for political change.
