Hamas Movement and the Jurisprudence of Discouragement... Do Not Give Netanyahu a Lifeline

The Palestinian cause, especially the Gaza Strip, is going through one of its harshest and most complex moments; our people have paid exorbitant prices in blood, homes, and resources, and human suffering has reached a limit that can no longer bear further attrition. In such historical turning points, courage alone is not enough; rather, political wisdom, good assessment of outcomes, and the selection of tools and timings become an integral part of the concept of resistance and conflict management.From here, I address these words as advice to my brothers in the leadership of the Hamas movement, out of concern for the movement, the cause, and our afflicted people in the Gaza Strip, not from a position of outbidding or belittling the sacrifices of the resistors. The current stage necessitates a different political reading, based on what we can call the “jurisprudence of discouragement”; that is, discouraging the enemy, thwarting his plans, removing pretexts from his hands, and stripping him of the power cards he relies on to achieve his political goals.The intended meaning of discouragement here is not to abandon resistance or relinquish rights and constants; this is a far cry from the intended meaning. Rather, the intention is to discourage the enemy from achieving his goals, to close the doors of pretexts before him, to weaken the cohesion of his project, and to deprive him of the arena he wants to lure us into.This meaning has a known origin in the Prophet's biography. In the Battle of the Confederates (Ghazwat al-Ahzab), the companion Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud al-Ashja'i, may Allah be pleased with him, came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, after secretly embracing Islam, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, said to him: “You are but one man among us, so discourage them from us if you can, for war is deception.” The intended meaning of discouragement in this context was not to withdraw from confrontation or to abandon the Muslims, but rather to dismantle the alliance of the Confederates, thwart their plans, and sow doubt among the components of their camp, until their strength dissipated and they became unable to achieve their goal.Nu'aym ibn Mas'ud succeeded in his mission; he did not confront the Confederates with the force of arms, but rather used intellect and his knowledge of their contradictions, thus contributing to weakening trust between Quraish, Ghatafan, and Banu Qurayza. Here lies the essence of the lesson: not every battle is fought in the same way, and victory is not always dependent on the abundance of military action; thwarting the enemy's plan, depriving him of his pretexts, and disrupting his calculations may be more effective than entering into the confrontation he desires and dictates its terms.Netanyahu and the Need for Continued WarBenjamin Netanyahu has made war a tool in his political battle, and he tries to present himself to Israeli society as the security man capable of continuing the confrontation. At the same time, Netanyahu is entering elections scheduled for October 27, 2026, amidst escalating political competition and internal criticism related to his management of wars, security failures, and the divisions he has deepened within Israel.The continuation of the engagement in the manner Netanyahu desires gives him an opportunity to rearrange his ranks, restore the discourse of “existential threat,” and gather right-wing currents around him. Therefore, wisdom dictates that we do not give him the card he is looking for, and that we do not offer him the lifeline he clings to whenever political avenues narrow for him.The call to “hold your hands” for two or three months is not a call for surrender, nor for abandoning the option of resistance from the calculations of the Palestinian people, but rather a call for a strategic truce on our part, and for stopping the action that Netanyahu can exploit to justify new adventures or prolong his political life. It is a call to move the battle from the field he chooses to other fields where Palestinians are more capable of embarrassing and isolating him.Resistance is not just firing weapons, but a broad system of political, legal, media, popular, and diplomatic work. Good management of resistance means knowing when to advance, when to stand firm, and when to prevent our opponent from getting the battle he needs.The South African LessonPerhaps the South African experience offers one of the most prominent lessons in this field. The African National Congress realized that armed struggle, despite its importance in its historical context, would not alone be sufficient to overthrow the apartheid regime, and that the battle for legitimacy, global public opinion, and economic and political isolation was no less important than the internal confrontation.The African National Congress did not abandon its goals, nor did it compromise on the right of the majority to freedom and equality, but it succeeded in developing its struggle tools and transforming its cause into a global moral issue. The widespread internal resistance combined with international economic and cultural sanctions and the growing global anti-apartheid movement, along with changes in the international environment, all contributed to pushing the regime to negotiate, leading to the 1994 elections and the establishment of a non-racial democratic government.The African National Congress won the battle for legitimacy before taking the reins of power. The apartheid regime became the isolated and morally besieged party, while the discourse of Mandela and his comrades became a symbol of freedom, dignity, and justice. When negotiations began, the African National Congress did not enter them from a position of abandoning its history, but from the position of a liberation movement that succeeded in making the world adopt the essence of its cause.Then South Africa presented a model of transitional justice and national reconciliation, not as a concession of victims' rights, but as an attempt to transition from a racist system to a new state, and to break the cycle of open revenge, without denying the past or absolving moral responsibility for it.Of course, Palestine is not an exact replica of South Africa, and historical experiences cannot be transferred verbatim; but the fundamental lesson remains valid: liberation movements triumph when they skillfully combine the tools of resistance, understand international transformations, and succeed in making their discourse a discourse of justice, while pushing their opponent into a corner of moral and political isolation.The Battle for Public Opinion and International LegitimacyWestern public opinion has witnessed a significant shift towards the Palestinian cause in recent years, appearing in universities, unions, churches, and civil institutions, and reaching within American political institutions themselves. In July 2026, more than a hundred Democratic members of the US House of Representatives supported an amendment to stop military aid to Israel, despite its non-passage, indicating the widening debate within the Democratic Party about unconditional support for Israel.Moreover, South Africa's move before the International Court of Justice contributed to keeping the Gaza issue at the heart of global legal and moral debate, and several countries joined or announced their intention to intervene in the case. This confirms that the battle of law and legitimacy is not marginal, but has become one of the central arenas in confronting the policies of the occupation.What is required from the Palestinian side is to invest in this transformation, not to squander it; to enhance the image of the Palestinian people as a people seeking freedom, justice, and self-determination, not to allow Netanyahu to re-reduce the issue to his security narrative. The more the action that Netanyahu can exploit recedes, the more the images of destruction, displacement, and siege come to the fore, and the reality of the occupation and its policies appear before global public opinion.Here, the jurisprudence of discouragement becomes an integrated political strategy: discouraging the Israeli project from achieving its goals, drying up its pretexts, deepening its internal contradictions, isolating its extremist leadership, expanding the solidarity and boycott movement, and moving the issue from an area of accusation to an area of injustice, right, and justice.Hold Your Hands... And Do Not Give Up Your RightsI am not calling on the Hamas movement to lay down arms or declare abandonment of resistance, nor to make free concessions to the occupation. Rather, I call on it to manage power well, and to understand that power does not lie in its continuous use, but in knowing when, how, and why it is used.The policy of “holding your hands” at this stage may be more painful for Netanyahu than a limited military action that gives him the pretext he needs. Depriving him of the image of war, of the discourse of emergency, and of the ability to reassemble the right behind him, is a form of discouraging the enemy and bringing down his political project.We must allow contradictions within Israel to emerge, for the families of prisoners, the opposition, and the currents rejecting the continuation of the war to hold the government accountable, and for global public opinion to see the Palestinian scene away from the noise Netanyahu uses to escape his responsibilities.The duty of leadership in historical moments is not to respond to every provocation, but to choose the battle that serves its people. Not every abstention is a retreat, just as not every military action is necessarily an advance. Disciplined patience, when based on a clear vision, can be one of the most effective forms of resistance.My message to my brothers in the leadership of the Hamas movement is clear: Do not give Netanyahu a lifeline, and do not allow him to make Palestinian blood a bridge to his political survival. Discourage his project, remove his pretexts, and move the battle to the arena of legitimacy, justice, and global public opinion.I am not calling for an end to resistance, but for its good management; and I am not calling for abandoning the conflict, but for choosing its timing, arena, and tools. How many battles have their owners won with weapons and then lost with politics, and how many victories have been made by intellect before being decided on the battlefield.That is the jurisprudence of discouragement that I advocate: discouraging the enemy, not abandoning resistance, and bringing down Netanyahu's project by depriving him of the reasons for his survival, instead of offering him a lifeline with our own hands.