My Fellow Palestinians, We Must Be Free To Criticize Hamas

-Analysis-

BERLIN — Criticism is a fundamental component of politics. It is required to rationalize political life, express the political effectiveness and vitality of any party or national liberation movement. But there is a clear difference between political criticism and political spite that focus on personal calculations, narrow competitive mentalities and the exchange of accusations and insults.

Unfortunately, over the past six decades, the Palestinian national movement has known little of genuine political criticism — and plenty of costly, failed experiences with criticism that is superficial and personal.

Neither Palestinians nor the national movement have ever questioned their leaders, reviewed their experience or discussed political and struggle options in Jordan, Lebanon or the occupied territories.

This applies to the problems of the negotiations or uprisings, the experiences of armed struggle and settlement, and the building of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Palestinian Authority or the factions. None of this happened despite repeated failures.

Yet the discourse and practices of politicians concerning the Palestinian cause and its options are open to review, criticism and questioning. A current and sensitive example is the question of whether Hamas leadership can be criticized for launching the Oct. 7 attack, which triggered Israel’s war in Gaza.

Miscalculations and disconnections

That spirit was obvious in a speech by Mohammed Deif, the leader of Hamas’ Qassam Brigades military wing. It appeared that Hamas’ calculations were not based on the balance of power in Gaza, the Arab world or on the international level. Rather, they were based on a fatalistic mentality and misplaced bets: on “the unity of the arenas,” which did not constitute an obstacle to Israel’s destruction of Gaza; and on the participation of people in the Arab and Islamic worlds, including in the West Bank and the 1948 territories.

Those calculations were completely disconnected from reality.

Yet there are other options for resistance, including armed resistance. As a result, what happened did not spare Jerusalem from Israeli attacks and violence, but rather increased them. It did not weaken settlements in the West Bank, but rather turned the settlers into armed militias that attack Palestinian villages and towns, much more than before. The emptying of Israeli prisons of Palestinians has also disappeared, as Israel has arrested more Palestinians.

Israel’s war has turned the enclave into rubble

Hamas’ rockets aborted the popular uprising in Sheikh Jarrah (2021), which drew Palestinians from the river to the sea including the Palestinians of 1948 (Palestinians in Israel) who played a leading role.

Since Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, there was a discussion about transforming the strip into a model for a stable and productive Palestinian society, as a better model for a future Palestinian state. But after the Israeli siege, it was turned into a shooting range for Israeli artillery, missiles and bombs. Israel’s war has turned the enclave into rubble in which more than 2 million Palestinians live, but without any means.

In these unfavorable circumstances, the priority is therefore for the Palestinian people to remain steadfast on their land, build their national institutions, and secure the means for their steadfastness in education, health, work and building the economy, while waiting for better or more appropriate circumstances.

Legitimate authority

In any case, prohibiting political criticism — of Fatah, Hamas and the factions — means removing the Palestinian leadership from the circle of review, criticism and accountability.

For example, the leadership of Fatah — the leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority — claims to be the legitimate leadership of the Palestinian people to justify its exclusivity and its choices — whether the Oslo Accords (achieved through secret negotiations), the monopoly of forming the National Council (the Parliament), or holding elections.

The same applies to Hamas. Both authorities possesses the resources, instruments of power and connections that enable them to impose what they want. They dominate Palestinian people without democratic practices, accountability, criticism, deliberation and elections. And they both lack a comprehensive national vision that matches the people, the land, the cause and the historical narrative.

Prohibiting criticism means placing Hamas among the sacred. It is similar to what Hezbollah is trying to do in Lebanon; but the Lebanese people and state know that Hezbollah is serving Iran’s interests rather than those of the Lebanese people.

In short, Hamas’ experience in power in Gaza was no better than Fatah’s experience in the West Bank.

Hamas also exaggerated the role of the besieged Gaza Strip, and did not take into account the limits of its capabilities. It is as if armed resistance itself is a goal, not a mean to achieve possible and sustainable political goals.

Questioning and criticizing Hamas’ leaders and their choices does nothing to belittle the role of the movement. Rather, it rationalizes its policies and choices. It accepts the reality of the Palestinian national movement’s deterioration, which is still floundering and lacks the strategy to reach political goals and form a comprehensive national entity that truly represents the Palestinian people.