For generations to come, the Palestinians will remember the horrific war in Gaza with pain and bitterness. But what cannot yet be seen is how Palestinians will view Hamas. Whether Hamas can claim a victory — and whether Palestinians will believe them will be determined by the type of ceasefire that is eventually agreed, if a formal one is eventually agreed. The end game — for both Israel and Hamas — is thus crucially important.
For the moment, Hamas is perceived by the majority of Palestinians as the victim of a war intended to gain its surrender. After all, Hamas was democratically elected, but was forbidden from ruling and besieged in Gaza. At the same time, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is accused of siding with Israel to restore his lost authority in Gaza.
The war exposed flaws in Hamas’ judgment. Hamas apparently did not envision a full-scale confrontation with Israel when it refused to renew a six-month truce. With Gaza suffering under a lengthy siege, Hamas leader Khalid Mashal said that there was no point in a new truce, since the old one had “failed to lift the siege on Gaza.” Other leaders were quoted as saying that Hamas would “lift the siege by force.”
If Hamas is to survive the war, it must demonstrate that its resistance resulted in a permanent opening of Gaza’s border crossings, especially in Rafah. For Palestinians, these are signs of victory. With open borders, Hamas would secure its regime in Gaza and build its popularity in the West Bank, putting enormous pressure on Abbas, the leader of the rival Fatah movement, to accept a national unity government on terms set by Hamas.
Members of Fatah’s Central Committee are already accusing Abbas of supporting Israel in the fighting, of wanting to “return to Gaza on an Israeli tank.” Radical groups within Fatah are leaning toward an open alliance with Hamas.
If Hamas comes out ahead, Abbas’ allies in other Palestinian factions will press him to accept Hamas and Islamic Jihad within the Palestine Liberation Organization. Egypt will have to backtrack on its rejection of Hamas to recover its image among the Arabs and to reduce tensions within Egyptian society. Pressure to integrate Hamas into Palestinian politics is also likely in some European capitals, particularly Paris and London, where some expressed opposition to isolating Hamas even before the war.
But if Israel forces Hamas to accept its conditions for border controls and a formal ceasefire, Hamas’ image as the guardian of Palestinian resistance will be severely damaged. Palestinians will ask if it was really necessary to fight this war and pay such a high price. Abbas will be able to argue that he advised Hamas to renew the truce and to end its missile fire on Israeli towns, but that Hamas insisted on exposing Palestinian civilians to devastation.
One indicator to watch for: the length of that ceasefire. Palestinians will recognize Hamas’ acceptance of a multi-year truce with Israel as a sign of defeat, which would also underscore Palestinian feelings of humiliation and abandonment. Hezbollah, despite its rhetoric, has taken no steps to support Hamas, and the Arab states seemed more than willing to support its defeat.
It is in rebuilding Gaza that the stakes of the competition will increase. Abbas, supported by the US and the EU, may have control over significant funding. The test for him will be to deliver quickly. Hamas will also have resources for reconstruction. Qatar, a Hamas supporter, has already announced an investment fund for Gaza and contributed US$250 million.
Hamas will have to make a convincing case that Gaza’s near destruction is a price that had to be paid. Many Palestinians believe that Israel inflicted this damage on Gaza to drive a wedge between the people and the “resistance.” There is a precedent for this argument: Hezbollah described the destruction of Beirut’s southern suburbs in exactly these terms at the end of the Lebanon War in July 2006. More importantly, Hamas can demonstrate that its leaders have been on the front lines during this war, sharing Palestinian suffering; many have been killed, along with their families.
The biggest question is whether the war will alter Hamas’ political goals. Two weeks ago, Musa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official, praised former US president Jimmy Carter in the Los Angeles Times as the only US president who had brought true peace in the Middle East.
This is a radical departure from Hamas rhetoric, which has always portrayed the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt as a betrayal of the Islamic world. It remains to be seen whether Abu Marzouk’s view is merely a tactic intended to encourage the administration of US President Barack Obama to reach out to Hamas, or whether the war convinced Hamas that the two-state solution is the only viable option to settle the conflict with Israel.
Mohammad Yaghi is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS