Ambiguity in Hamas' refuting of UN interference

As the United Nations, in accordance with the Palestinian Authority and Israel, embark upon their infiltration plan for Gaza, Hamas has expressed opposition to the organisation’s involvement, claiming that the resistance movement was not informed of UN Special Coordinator Robert Serry’s plan for the enclave’s reconstruction.

Hamas has repeatedly stated its opposition to UN interference in Gaza, rejecting the imperialist organisation’s direct dictates upon Palestinians. However, as with other statements, adamant assertions of resistance towards any form of foreign intervention in Palestine have been normalised through utterances of support for the Palestinian Authority’s role in rebuilding Gaza, as well as the resistance movement’s acceptance of the concessions that led to the formation of the Palestinian unity government.

Quoted in the Times of Israel, Hamas’ deputy leader Mousa Abu-Marzouk said: “During the indirect negotiations in Cairo we rejected the UN as a recognised party to construction. Everyone insisted that the Palestinian Authority, through the national unity government, is to be responsible for construction.”

The UN’s “Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism” – a plan devised in collaboration with Israel and the compromised Palestinian leadership, is a form of international oppressive surveillance under the guise of humanitarian aid, or “hope to the people of Gaza”, according to the published document which attempts to minimise the destruction of “Operation Protective Edge” into transient discomforts. It is obvious that the UN’s primary concern was not the wellbeing of Palestinians, but rather devising schemes that would enable Israel to exert further control over Gaza

Primarily, the ostracising of Hamas should be viewed within the wider context of the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire which ultimately led to a series of regurgitated proposals that failed to spell any form of autonomy for Palestinians. The repetitive proposals, which included a clause for foreign interference in Gaza, are, in a way, reflective of the endorsement to construct a semblance of political unity prior to the consolidation of resistance – a concept that has once again been relegated to episodic necessity as opposed to a strategy for liberation of historic Palestine.

Implicit within the negotiations was the elimination of Hamas’ role in Gaza in favour of the collaborative PA and the unity government – the entity that will be embellishing its diplomatic career with a visit to Zionist-supportive France at the beginning of next year. Earlier in September, PA President Mahmoud Abbas ignored the ramifications of foreign interference in Palestine by praising two entities dedicated to further oppression of the colonised population – Egypt and the US, expressing “complete appreciation” for efforts “to satisfy all sides”.

Hamas, as on other occasions, is fluctuating between resistance and compliance – a tactic that translates into the disintegration of Palestinian resistance in favour of diplomacy, save for occasional instances when statements seem to convey an adherence to liberation. However, the fact that the unity government formation was based upon concessionary gestures will render a political stance in favour of resistance even more elusive. While resistance and the complexities of alleviating humanitarian conditions in Gaza may seem currently contradictory, further alienation through ambiguous statements and continued insistence upon the PA and the unity government as responsible entities for Gaza’s reconstruction only serves to imply acquiescence to imperialist dictates in Palestine.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.