By Dr. Ibrahim Farid Assalia
Lecturer in Media Ethics
The statements made by Fatah leader Azzam al-Ahmad are no longer merely a political stance open to interpretation. Rather, they appear to be a blatant attempt to provide political cover for Hamas at a time when Palestinian discourse should be clearer and more decisive, not more ambiguous and conciliatory.
Justification Instead of Accountability
What al-Ahmad said was not so much a call for unity as it was an evasion of the fundamental question: Who bears political responsibility for what has happened and is happening?
A discourse that avoids naming mistakes and replaces accountability with generalities about “circumstances” and “unity” does not create national consensus but rather legitimizes political chaos.
When a Fatah leader speaks in this manner, the message received both domestically and internationally is the same: there is no accountability, no clear political framework, but rather an attempt to maintain internal equilibrium, even at the expense of the national position itself.
Free Legitimacy for Hamas
The most dangerous aspect of these statements is that they grant Hamas what it has been unable to achieve politically: implicit legitimacy from within the Palestinian political system itself.
Instead of Fatah being in a position to set the terms for restructuring the Palestinian political landscape, it appears to be seeking to appease Hamas or adapt to its influence.
This shift should not be interpreted merely as a political tactic, but as a sign of the official leadership’s declining ability to impose its vision for the future of the Palestinian system, and its capitulation to the logic of the status quo.
A Crisis Within Fatah Before It’s with Hamas
The problem is no longer just the Palestinian division, but the absence of a clear discourse within Fatah itself. These statements reveal that the movement has not yet decided on its vision:
Does it want a political partnership with clear conditions?
Or is it afraid of confrontation and therefore hiding behind slogans of unity?
In politics, ambiguity is not neutrality, but weakness. The longer this approach continues, the more Fatah will transform from a leading force into a party trying to adapt to the current situation.
A Moment That Demands Confrontation, Not Appeasement
The current stage is not a time for political niceties or double-speak. This is a moment that demands clarity in defining responsibilities and candor in outlining the political path, not rhetoric that equates everyone and leaves the crisis unresolved.
National unity is not built by ignoring differences, but by resolving them within a clear political vision. Any discourse that grants legitimacy without a clear political return does not serve unity but rather perpetuates division.
In conclusion:
Azzam al-Ahmad’s statements were not merely a political gaffe, but rather an expression of a deeper crisis of decision-making within Fatah. They reveal a hesitant leadership, a discourse that fears decisive action, and an approach that gives its opponents what they need without achieving what its people deserve.
At such a pivotal moment, perhaps the most dangerous challenge facing the Palestinians is not the division itself, but the continuation of a political discourse that justifies it instead of ending it.
التاريخ 25-2-2026
