Hamas and the rumour war

In his book Public Opinion and Psychological Warfare, Dr Mukhtar Tuhami defines rumours as “promoting a fabricated story that has no basis in reality, or deliberately exaggerating or distorting a story that is less than likely to be true or to add a false or distorted fact to a story that is most true, or to interpret and comment on a true story in a manner contrary to reality and the truth, in order to have a psychological or qualitative impact on the local, regional, or international public opinion to achieve political, economic or military goals in one country, several countries, or on a global scale.”

We are witnessing a time in which Hamas is confronting not only the Israeli enemy but also internal and regional conspiracies aiming to bring the movement to its knees; when the movement is facing the challenges of governing a suffocating siege, and when it is facing accusations of terrorism and attempts to add it to the terrorism list.

In light of all this, Hamas is also currently facing a different kind of war; the rumour war spread by a number of parties aiming to demonise the movement, destroy its history and role in the Palestinian struggle, and put obstacles in the way of its jihadist course.

Although rumours have been spread about Hamas for a long time, it is only recently that these rumours have intensified and that their danger increased.

Last January, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas openly accused Hamas of making contact with the Israeli occupation government in order to create an entity separate from the Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip.

Abbas’s next action was ironic when he stressed that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi’s position was honourable when he found out about Hamas’s conspiracy and he insisted that Egypt would not give Israel or Hamas even one centimetre of Egyptian land at the expense of the Palestinian cause.

About two months later, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, Ahmed Majdalani, reiterated this accusation against Hamas.

The former Israeli national security adviser Giora Eiland recently published a study entitled “Regional Alternatives to the Two-State Solution”. This report aims to liquidate the Palestinian cause by means of a land swap solution, having Egypt give up part of Sinai that will be annexed to Gaza, and establishing an independent Palestinian state on this land in exchange for benefits given to Egypt.

Eiland’s plan is well known, but what is new is the PLO’s attempts to drag Hamas into the mix, accusing it of being one of the parties concerned with implementing the plan. This was strongly denied by Hamas leaders.

The goal of these accusations is clear. They seek to cause distrust of Hamas and weaken its popularity, which it has earned through its role in resisting the Israeli occupation. Meanwhile the PA has allowed itself to be a tool in the occupation’s hands and its ally in exchange for financial gains, all the while persecuting the members of the resistance movement in the West Bank.

In my opinion, the goal behind these accusations is to provide future promotion for Eiland’a plan. Dr Ismail Radwan, who said during his comments on the accusation that “they aim to promote future projects”, has also suggested this.

These accusations raise a thousand question marks because it was Hamas who played the main role in initiating Palestinian reconciliation by offering to hand power over to the Palestinian Unity government. Does this sound like a side that would sell out Palestine in order to monopolise power by betraying the Palestinian cause?

Should such accusations be directed against the movement that spent its entire career in a confrontation with the Israeli occupation and which has sacrificed the blood of countless martyrs for the sake of the cause?

For Hamas, resistance is a strategic option. The movement was established on the basis of resistance to Israel and with the goal of liberating every inch of occupied Palestine and Al-Aqsa Mosque.

These accusations can only be directed at those who are independent and who have become addicted to suspicious agreements and deals with the occupation and its allies, actors who are no less interested in aborting the struggle for resistance and labelling it as “terrorism” than the Israelis are.

Some have commented on the Jewish American delegation that visited Al-Sisi in Egypt with words that imply malicious propaganda against Hamas. Such comments included insinuations that the meeting was focused on Egypt and Israel’s adoption of supporting Hamas in order to fight Islamic State (ISIS) on their behalf, as Hamas is experienced in guerrilla warfare, and therefore qualified to fight ISIS.

The comments went too far in belittling the movement, claiming that Hamas does not pose a danger to Israel except as a burdensome reminder of the most recent war on Gaza. During the war, Hamas’s military wing Al-Qassam Brigades, along with other Palestinian resistance forces, responded with Operation “Eaten Straw”.

The same commentator added that Al-Sisi and his Israeli friends would support Hamas in the fight against Islamic State with light weapons that will make it capable to fight but incapable of dominating in a ploy to exhaust the capabilities of both Hamas and ISIS at the same time.

I wonder, what would force Hamas to change its strategy and take such a foolish risk? What would make it change its approach of resistance to Israel in order to begin fighting another faction, even if they differ ideologically?

In order to open the crossings?

For financial aid?

What a silly price to pay!

Will Hamas accept this out of fear of ISIS spreading to Gaza?

Hamas has become experienced in managing and governing the Gaza Strip and ensuring its security grip on it. At the same time, the movement is only concerned with the Palestinian territories – the only case in which Hamas would confront ISIS is if ISIS were to attempt to enter Gaza. This, however, is unlikely. I believe doing so would be a blow to ISIS itself and it will lose its popularity. This would also be considered an uncalculated move given Hamas’s capabilities in armed confrontation.

The purpose of the rumour is clear; it aims to distort Hamas’s reputation and raise suspicions around the movement. On the other hand, I also believe it is an attempt to provoke ISIS to harass Hamas, which, according to the calculations of those behind the rumours, will lead to a confrontation between the two sides that will benefit both Israel and the Egyptian government.

One of the contradictions inherent in these rumours about Hamas is that they come at a time in which some are also accusing Hamas of cooperating with ISIS in the recent operations in Sinai, including the allegation that Hamas has been treating the wounded members of ISIS in Gaza. These rumours have been circulated in Israeli, Egyptian, and PA media outlets.

These rumours and accusations will continue to circulate about Hamas, and public opinion will always rise and fall. However, resistance has always been Hamas’s strategic option and this is a long-term war, not a single battle. Hamas is not required to prove its integrity and position, and neither should be believe that it would take uncalculated risks and chances, especially in light of its current control over the Gaza Strip.

Translated from Arabi21, 12 July, 2015.

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