Jonathan Adiri
Israel may have won the war militarily, but it risks losing strategically. While the entire security establishment focuses on “how to prevent the next October 7,” the real transformation is taking place elsewhere. Hamas may have surrendered tactically, but recent weeks show it is undergoing a dangerous evolution. It now seeks to seize the political assets that Fatah cultivated for it while Israel was fighting, and from there continue its campaign against Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.
On the battlefield, the outcome is clear. The IDF dismantled Hamas’s military capabilities, and the U.S.-led international coalition, through sophisticated Israeli maneuvering, has forced the group into a paper “surrender.” Yet this is not a surrender; it is a strategic metamorphosis. Hamas is ready to trade rockets for stamps, tunnels for offices. It has realized that real power has shifted from the ground to the international arena and is now willing to give up military control of Gaza in exchange for integration into the Palestinian Authority institutions that Fatah developed during years of conflict.
While Israeli soldiers fought bravely against Hamas in Gaza, Fatah quietly worked the diplomatic corridors, maintaining and even upgrading the Palestinian international position. The result: Israel now faces severe diplomatic disadvantage. It is burdened by cases at The Hague, and public opinion in the U.S., especially among younger generations, has plummeted. One poll found that nearly half of young Americans believe the events of October 7 were justified. Meanwhile, UNRWA, the agency most detrimental to Israel’s sovereignty, has survived. Just this week, the International Court ruled in Israel’s case against it that the organization is “neutral enough” and remains part of the “legitimate international family.”
This pattern is familiar. We saw it in Lebanon, when Hezbollah transformed from a militia into the dominant political party without giving up its weapons. We’ve seen neo-Nazi movements in Europe trade military boots for suits and enter parliaments. We saw it with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The strategy is the same: shed the failed military guise and adopt an institutional, respectable form to continue the struggle.
So, who wants a “neo-Hamas”? Two states that serve as patrons of the Muslim Brotherhood: Turkey and Qatar. For them, Hamas is a strategic project. They don’t want to rebuild Gaza; they want to rebuild Hamas. They understand that the only way to keep it relevant is by “whitewashing” it, turning it from a pariah terrorist organization into a legitimate political player under a new name.
Their actions are visible. Qatar continues to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars, this time under “humanitarian” and “reconstruction” cover. It hosts Hamas leaders, conducts political negotiations on their behalf, and portrays them as legitimate partners. Its vast media empire, led by Al Jazeera, serves the organization’s interests. Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who called Netanyahu “the Hitler of our time,” provides Hamas with political and ideological cover, promoting it in international forums as a “legitimate liberation movement.”
In contrast, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates see a neo-Hamas as a disaster. They view it as a direct threat to the regional stability they are trying to build, a Middle East of progress, innovation, and trade based on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s “Vision 2030.” Hamas, as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is not only an ideological enemy but also a political threat to the foundations of their national models.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have no interest in whitewashing Hamas. They want genuine civilian governance in Gaza; reform, transparency, demilitarization, and educational oversight. They refused to take part in regional “reconciliation” summits aimed at granting Hamas renewed legitimacy, such as the failed one in Sharm el-Sheikh. Their message to Washington is clear: reconstruction, yes; Hamas in a suit, never.
No comments:
Post a Comment