Hamas is the first to violate the Arab Summit decisions!

Unfortunately, only days after the Arab Summit succeeded in proposing an Arab plan to respond to the displacement plan, Hamas entered into unilateral negotiations with the US administration, undermining all the decisions of the Arab Summit in Cairo. These included an Arab consensus on the Egyptian-Palestinian plan to rebuild the Gaza Strip, the formation of a community support committee linked to the Palestinian National Authority, and the empowerment of Palestinian security forces to manage the Strip's affairs. Although this Arab consensus succeeded in countering the displacement plan proposed by US President Trump, who quickly abandoned it in his press statements two days ago, emphasizing that he does not want to displace the Palestinian people, Hamas's unilateral approach in negotiating with the US President's hostage envoy, Adam Boehler, constituted a real challenge to the outcomes of the Arab Summit.

Despite the US administration's retreat from these direct talks, indirect negotiations continued between the two sides through US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. During his first round of negotiations in the region, Witkoff outlined a path to ending the fighting through the implementation of several principles, most notably the withdrawal of Hamas forces from the Gaza Strip, the end of its rule over the Strip, and the handover of Israeli detainees in a single batch. This would be in exchange for the delivery of aid to the Palestinian people, an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and a cessation of military operations. What's strange is that Hamas's positions in these negotiations deviated not only from the Arab Summit resolutions but also from the goals of the Palestinian national project. The movement insisted that it would not allow the Palestinian Authority or any other party to rule the Gaza Strip, and that it was prepared to sign a long-term truce of no less than 30 years, guaranteeing Israel's security and transforming itself into a political party that advocates peace, development, and stability. It also called on the United States to assist it in establishing a Palestinian state under its rule in the Gaza Strip, or any part of it (leaks say that the state proposed by Hamas is a mini-state located between Gaza City and Khan Yunis!). Unfortunately, all these demands are inconsistent with the Arab Summit resolutions. Indeed, they serve to undermine them.

The gap between US demands and Hamas's demands appears to be wide, prompting Butkov, who recently participated in the Doha negotiations, to propose an interim plan for a ceasefire to last several weeks in exchange for the delivery of aid and the release of a limited number of living and dead Israeli detainees. In other words, Butkov's second track proposes a temporary truce in exchange for aid and prisoners only, not a final resolution to the conflict.

In fact, I was not surprised by Hamas's position. In fact, the latest opinion poll conducted by the International Academic Campaign Against Occupation and Apartheid, the official results of which will be published today, Sunday (yesterday), indicates that Hamas will not facilitate the implementation of the Arab Summit resolutions, nor will it facilitate the empowerment of the legitimate Palestinian Authority to assume power and administer the Gaza Strip. The questions that arise in light of this Hamas intransigence are: Is Hamas's insistence on administering the Gaza Strip worth the price of the continued war of genocide waged by the occupation forces against the Gaza Strip? Why does Hamas insist on continuing its rule of the Strip, even though it has plunged the Strip into five wars that have achieved nothing but killing, genocide, and destruction for the Palestinian people? Isn't it time for this movement to review its strategies and admit its failure? Why do Hamas leaders praise national unity and reconciliation and hold Fatah responsible for the failure of reconciliation efforts, while they are conducting direct negotiations with the Americans under the slogan "There is no national authority in the Gaza Strip"? Does Hamas expect Arab countries to contribute to the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and implement the decisions of the Arab Summit, if it insists on this position, to implement it, while these countries insist on their support for the return of the Palestinian Authority to the Strip and its participation in reconstruction efforts? These questions and others must be discussed by the Hamas leadership, and then new strategies must be developed that are beneficial not only to its members but also to the Palestinian people. This Hamas leadership, whose statements are contradictory and whose narratives differ, is the one that blessed the outcomes of the Arab Summit, but unfortunately, it is the first to deviate from these decisions!

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

Why does Hamas insist on continuing its rule over the Gaza Strip, despite having plunged the territory into five wars that have brought nothing but death, genocide, and destruction to the Palestinian people? Isn't it time for this movement to review its strategies and admit its failure?