This is a heavy, pivotal question that touches upon the depths of the Palestinian crisis and deserves a profound, multifaceted analysis.
The recent images of demonstrations erupting in Gaza are seen from varying perspectives by Arab media, the Palestinian Authority, and Netanyahu’s guns. It is fundamental to acknowledge first that the people of Gaza know their own territory best; they alone have the legitimacy to express their pains and hopes. They are the people of sacrifice, holders of the weapons, and the last fortress in a nation seeking deliverance.
Amid Gaza’s devastated heart, among the rubble of demolished homes and broken hearts, a profound existential question resonates: Should Hamas withdraw from Gaza to spare further loss of life? Or would such a withdrawal ignite a broader project aimed at reshaping Gaza according to Israeli and American interests, marking yet another chapter of the Nakba, this time disguised as “peace”?
In the volatile realm of politics, not every shining path leads to gold, and not every proclaimed route to salvation leads to safety.
The Booby-Trapped Road
Since the latest war erupted in Gaza, discussions have resurfaced—sometimes in hushed tones, sometimes explicitly—about an “option of rescue”: Hamas abandoning authority in the Strip to allow regional and international forces to “reorganize the situation,” halt the ongoing violence, and restart the stalled reconstruction.
Yet, let’s seriously ask: What truly awaits Gaza if Hamas leaves the political and administrative scene?
Some advocate for this scenario as a magic recipe for salvation: an immediate halt to airstrikes and devastating bombardments, permanent opening of border crossings, an influx of necessary humanitarian aid, and perhaps even establishing an “alternative authority” under Arab or international supervision.
However appealing this rosy scenario might seem, it intentionally overlooks a pivotal question: Who will fill the massive vacuum? With what political project? And serving whose interests?
Post-Withdrawal Consequences
Without a structured, influential force like Hamas, it’s certain Israel will prevent any truly sovereign Palestinian entity from governing Gaza. Even if the Palestinian Authority officially took over administration, it would merely act as an administrative proxy stripped of real autonomy, in a region deprived of genuine resistance and independent decision-making.
This paves the way for an even graver scenario: transforming temporary “safe zones” into semi-permanent refugee enclaves. Under dubious security pretexts, residents might be barred from returning to their original northern homes, initiating a silent displacement project guarded by international forces, financed by Arab countries, and justified on humanitarian grounds.
In this context, Hamas’s withdrawal won’t save Gaza but might temporarily salvage Israel’s international image, leaving Gaza exposed to demographic engineering intended to alter its identity fundamentally.
The Alternative: Resistance Remains
Conversely, Hamas remaining in Gaza might be costlier in immediate humanitarian terms but could be the final barrier preventing forced displacement. Israel—and Washington behind it—insist Hamas’s presence perpetuates warfare and exacerbates humanitarian catastrophe.
Yet strategically, steadfast resistance maintains the essence of the Palestinian cause alive: the legitimate right to resist and a firm rejection of imposed solutions by force.
In times when “people’s rights” are sometimes traded for bread or medicine, resistance—however debated—becomes an essential deterrent against occupation attempts to dominate Palestinian history, memory, and identity.
The Real Predicament
Let’s face reality clearly: The real dilemma isn’t whether Hamas stays or leaves.
The deeper tragedy lies in the absence of a unified Palestinian national project, the deterioration of Palestinian institutions, and the shift of the Palestinian cause from liberation struggle to merely a diluted negotiation file managed by Palestinian security apparatuses obedient to Israeli intelligence directives.
Whether Hamas stays or leaves Gaza, the region remains trapped under threat unless there’s a comprehensive redefinition of Palestinian leadership, national identity, and strategic goals.
True salvation for Gaza won’t come from changing signs on administrative buildings but from fundamentally altering the unjust rules imposed upon Palestinians since the catastrophic Oslo Accords.
Beware of Easy Answers
In critical moments, simple answers appear tempting: “Let Hamas leave, save the people.” But reality is often more complicated and bitter. This “exit” might actually be a disguised political expulsion, and the “rescue” offered to Palestinians today could be the gentle facade of a looming mass displacement.
The critical question isn’t merely: “Should Hamas leave Gaza?” but rather: Who fills the void afterward? With what political project? Serving whose interests? And, perhaps most crucially, does the Palestinian population—after all the bloodshed and sacrifices—have the luxury to commit yet another strategic error?
The withdrawal of Palestinian fighters from Beirut in 1982 steered the PLO’s ship toward Oslo, resulting in “sleeping in Dayton’s honey,” security coordination, and transforming the rifle into a “VIP” airport pass. Today, Gaza is urged to repeat that scenario, at an even greater cost: exclusion from history itself.
What is sought isn’t merely dismantling resistance but stripping Palestinians of their right to existence. Therefore, the question is no longer: Should Gaza survive? It is: Will Palestine survive if Gaza disappears?
This is the ultimate test.
