The statements of Azzam al-Ahmad, Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in which he asserted that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and rejected its disarmament, reveal the predicament of Fatah’s political discourse more than they reflect a clear strategic vision. The man, who represents one of the oldest figures in the Palestinian political system, seemed to be speaking the language of political survival, not the language of a coherent national project.
Denying Reality Instead of Confronting It
Describing Hamas as not being a terrorist organization might appear to be an attempt to open the door to reconciliation, but in reality, it reflects a deeper crisis: the absence of a clear definition of the very nature of the Palestinian Authority.
If Fatah considers Hamas a political partner, why has the division persisted for more than a decade?
And if it considers Hamas’s weapons legitimate, why did it engage in a bloody power struggle with them?
This vacillation does not reflect political pragmatism, but rather a discourse that attempts to reconcile two contradictions: appeasing the international community on the one hand, and avoiding internal conflict on the other.
Legitimizing Weapons Outside the State
The most dangerous aspect of al-Ahmad’s statements is not his characterization of Hamas, but rather his stance on its weapons.
Refusing to disarm effectively means acknowledging the existence of a parallel authority outside the framework of the state, and transforms the very idea of a Palestinian state into a theoretical concept devoid of genuine sovereignty.
What kind of state can exist while armed factions retain the power to decide on war and peace outside its institutions?
And what kind of political system can stabilize while two parties simultaneously monopolize legitimacy?
A Speech Without Political Cost
What distinguishes al-Ahmad’s statements is their attempt to appease everyone without bearing the cost of any position.
He neither attacks Hamas so as not to be accused of obstructing unity, nor does he explicitly support it so as not to lose international support, thus ending with a vague and ambiguous speech lacking decisiveness and clarity.
This type of discourse is one of the reasons for the erosion of public trust in the Palestinian political leadership, because it suggests that the struggle for power is more important than the liberation project itself.
The Deeper Crisis: The Aging of the Political System
Al-Ahmad’s statements are not merely a personal opinion, but a reflection of a political structure that has been in a state of prolonged stagnation. The Palestinian Authority, in both the West Bank and Gaza, no longer produces solutions, but rather issues statements that manage the crisis without even approaching a resolution.
Conclusion
Instead of offering a vision for overcoming the division, Azzam al-Ahmad’s statements appeared to be an attempt to freeze it.
When politics becomes based on avoiding decisive action, discourse becomes a justification for the status quo, and leaders become witnesses to the crisis instead of being the architects of its solution.
التاريخ 24-2-2026
