Hamas's contradictory statements: a tactic or a division?

Dr. Ramzi Awda

Hamas leader and political bureau member Musa Abu Marzouk made press statements that sparked widespread controversy inside and outside Hamas circles. In an interview with the New York Times, Abu Marzouk indicated that he would not have supported the October 7 attack had he known the extent of the destruction that would befall the Gaza Strip, expressing the Hamas leadership’s openness to discussing the future of its weapons in the Strip. As a result of these statements, which radically contradicted what Hamas leaders such as Khaled Meshaal, Khalil al-Hayya, and Ghazi Hamad called “the victory of the Al-Aqsa flood” and “changing history,” Hamas, through its spokesman Hazem Qassem, considered that these statements do not represent the movement’s position. Osama Hamdan and Sami Abu Zuhri also stressed the strength of Hamas and its adherence to its weapons, and rejected any attempts to exchange aid for handing over Hamas’ weapons.

In fact, we have become accustomed to the contradictory statements of the Hamas leadership on many historical occasions, especially in light of crises. Hamas signed all reconciliation agreements with Fatah, and it joined the government of national consensus after the Beach Agreement in 2014, but it was never prepared to hand over its weapons to this government. In the same context, the movement agreed in the Beijing and Moscow understandings to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and announced its desire and will to join the organization, but it did not take any practical steps to achieve this. Rather, it insisted that the idea of its joining the organization must be based first on its continued rule over the Gaza Strip, and secondly, that its joining the organization must be based on the restructuring of the organization. Not only that, but the movement has not spoken in any official statement about the PLO or the Palestinian National Authority since October 7 until this moment. Later, it preferred to negotiate with Israel alone through mediators or even through direct negotiations with the new American administration in a way that provoked everyone, given that it had always considered the United States an enemy of the Palestinian people, just like Israel. In addition, Hamas obstructed the formation of the support committee proposed by Cairo because it refused to have the Palestinian National Authority as its reference. On the other hand, when its formation was announced at the Arab Summit, Khalil al-Hayya welcomed its establishment, but Hamas inside formed an opposing committee to this committee, and claimed that it represented the outcome of the national consensus.

Therefore, it can be concluded that Hamas uses contradictory statements as a political tactic that guarantees it can circumvent national, regional and international political pressures on the one hand, and also makes it more capable of maneuvering in reconciliation negotiations or truce deal negotiations with Israel on the other hand. At present, it seems that these contradictory statements by Hamas leaders have gone far beyond political tactics, and may even herald a split within its ranks, especially since they are accompanied by the displacement plan and the American warning to hand over all Israeli detainees and leave Gaza.

In fact, in a previous article I predicted a split within Hamas as a result of the October 7 defeat and the genocide taking place in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This split can be explained as follows:

1- Hamas inside feels let down by the leaders outside who live in luxury hotels in regional capitals and give grand speeches, while they are the ones who have given and continue to give almost everything in the last war, and whose homes were destroyed and whose sons were killed. Therefore, while we find that Hamas outside the Gaza Strip’s statements seemed more moderate and open to handing over the Strip, we find that Hamas inside the Gaza Strip deployed what remained of its armed militias in all the cities of the Gaza Strip and tried to control the Rafah crossing, and sought to control aid and redistribute and sell it in a way that gives Hamas inside great independence at a time when Hamas outside the Gaza Strip was unable to provide them with anything throughout the war.

2- The expansion of the masses’ rejection of the return of Hamas rule in the Strip. The Gazans realized that the last war destroyed almost everything for them, and they held the responsibility for this great destruction on Hamas’s irrational rule and on their wrong calculations in the October 7 decision. Not only that, but they also realized that there is no chance for reconstruction in Gaza as long as Hamas continues to rule. All this has placed a great responsibility on Hamas’s leadership inside and outside. The outside has become more rational in surrendering weapons and making concessions, while the leadership inside realizes that they will lose everything and will not be able to compensate for their losses if they hand over the administration of the Strip to the Palestinian National Authority or any other party.

3- After Trump’s recent threats, there is no room for maneuver, tactics, or tricks. Hamas inside will enter into a second devastating war and displacement if it does not make concessions, and it will not be able to resist the American-Israeli determination to destroy everything that remains in Gaza, while Hamas abroad will be exposed to a large wave of assassinations, persecution, confiscation of funds, arrests, restrictions on movement, and the closure of its offices, which it cannot bear in light of the Arab countries’ aversion to Hamas and holding it responsible for the events, to the point that they avoided mentioning it at all in the decisions of the Arab Summit in Cairo.

In conclusion, it seems that Hamas is not in its best condition now, and what feeds our belief that a split is imminent is the silence of its leader, Khalil al-Hayya, about separating all these contradictions in positions. While al-Hayya enjoys great influence in Hamas domestically, he has not yet had the courage to apologize to the Palestinian people for involving them in a destructive and ill-considered war that gave the occupation a justification to destroy the Strip and displace its people. He has also not yet had the courage to announce that Hamas has relinquished control of the Strip and handed it over to the Palestinian National Authority. This silence will not prevent history from holding him responsible for giving Israel a justification to continue its aggression against the Palestinian people in the Strip once again. Now is the moment for Khalil al-Hayya to show courage and responsibility so that he can actually and verbally comply with the decisions of the Arab Summit and prevent Israel from displacing the Palestinian people in the Strip.

....................

It can be concluded that Hamas uses contradictory statements as a political tactic that ensures it can circumvent national, regional and international political pressures on the one hand, and also makes it more capable of maneuvering in reconciliation negotiations or truce deal negotiations with Israel on the other hand.