The following morning, the same scene was repeated: Protesters raised Hamas’s flag, and then they went further: They interrupted the Friday sermon and, in an unprecedented move, kicked out the Imam, who is affiliated with Hamas’s rival faction, the Palestinian Authority, because he failed to praise Gaza, its martyrs and its armed resistance. There were also calls for ousting PA President Mahmoud Abbas, whom protesters called “traitor” because of his dedication to security collaboration with Israel.
This enthusiasm for Hamas and for armed resistance from Palestinian crowds in East Jerusalem was unprecedented from a community that rarely endorses either. And it was doubly surprising given that Hamas’s popularity had been shrinking earlier this year. A senior Hamas leader recently told me that its internal polls forecast the party winning a scant 25 percent of the total vote in the now-postponed Palestinian general elections. As a result, Hamas had been softening their positions, including releasing Fatah detainees from prison, in a desperate bid to appease the public.
So how did Hamas suddenly win the hearts and minds of the crowds at al-Aqsa?
It has Israel to thank. Hamas’s newfound popularity is the direct result of the latest escalation, for Hamas thrives in times of crises, violence and despair. And it’s never as weak as during times of peace and progress.
Whatever else may be true of the recent exchange of rockets between Israel and Gaza, one thing is certain: Hamas successfully controlled the narrative in which it was the defender of the Palestinian people against the massive police brutality in East Jerusalem that lasted during all of Ramadan and against Israel’s relentless pounding, besiegement and humiliation of Gaza. These actions enabled Hamas to position itself as the ultimate defender and avenger of Gaza and the Palestinians at large, the uncompromising shield that prevented Gaza’s capitulation, defended Jerusalem, deterred Israeli atrocities, and exacted revenge and counter-intimidation from Israel.
You can see the role Israel played in enabling this narrative to develop in the fact that there was initially harsh criticism of Hamas for appropriating what had been a peaceful protest movement opposing the removal of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah. There was pushback against Hamas from within Palestinian society for assuming the mantle of defenders with violence where a nonviolent movement had sprung up.
But that criticism from the beginning of the escalation quickly evaporated as Israel pummeled the Gaza Strip. And as more and more civilians died, including more and more children, the PA began to look like a defeatist laughingstock, a cautionary tale whose role as Israel’s subcontractors in the occupied territories got it nothing but further abuse by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
What can the Palestinian peace camp possibly offer Gazans emerging from the rubble of the last two weeks to find their their neighborhoods, iconic sites, and vital infrastructure destroyed beyond recognition? What message can they offer the families of the 248 people who were killed, including 66 children, that can compete with Hamas’s mantras of revenge and defense, empty though they may be?
Israel’s attacks on Gaza have now left the caged population with destruction and ruins as far as the eye can see. As the New York Times reported on the ninth day of the 11-day escalation, 17 hospitals and clinics were damaged, Gaza’s only COVID-19 test lab was wrecked, fetid wastewater was floating in the streets, water pipes serving at least 800,000 people were broken, sewage systems had been destroyed, dozens of schools damaged, and around 72,000 Gazans internally displaced. Hundreds of homes have been destroyed.
The intensity and scale of the attacks was unprecedented. Israel attacked 150 sites with 450 bombs in 30 minutes, lightening the dark skies of Gaza ablaze.
Even if you think that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas’s rockets with its own airstrikes, surely you can see the impact this level of devastation will have on the civilian population Israel has bombarded?
The despair, bitterness, hatred, and desperation created by this destruction can only exacerbate and fuel a dangerous and disastrous cycle of violence and extremism on both sides of the fence that renders the next escalation merely a matter of time. The recent escalation only made Hamas stronger and Gaza more desolate, more unlivable, and more deeply stuck in its endless immiseration.
This should make clear that there is no military solution to Gaza. Israel cannot bomb Gazans into submission and silence while they continue to live caged in a toxic slum from birth to death. What Israel has succeeded to do is bomb civilians into supporting the group now positioning itself as fighting for their survival.
Instead of focusing on weakening Hamas and “mowing the grass” with periodic assaults, Israel should for once try a different strategy that’s population-centric rather than enemy-centric. It’s clear that its focus on eliminating Hamas has failed. But there is an approach Israel hasn’t tried: acknowledging Gaza’s citizens are humans who also need and deserve security, safety, freedom, and dignity.
This is the path forward, out of this endless cycle of violence and death. Israel must allow life to find its way to Gaza. It must give Gaza’s people their basic rights, end the draconian blockade that rendered the enclaved uninhabitable, allow the establishment of an internationally supervised and run seaport and airport, and let Gaza develop an economy and thrive.
What most Gazans want is a decent and normal life where they can afford to fall in love, start a family, find a job, grow roots into the land and be free from systematic indignations and discrimination. The closer we move towards this, the less relevant and less popular Hamas’ platform will become.
Muhammad Shehada is a writer and civil society activist from the Gaza Strip and a student of development studies at Lund University, Sweden. He was the PR officer for the Gaza office of the Euro-Med Monitor for Human Rights.
The views in this article are the writer’s own.
