Fatah Movement Between Authority, State, and Armed Resistance

Some individuals have reached high leadership positions in the Fatah movement and in the parties in general, and within the authority, not because of their struggle history or their distinguished actions for the national cause, or because the people elected them, but rather due to their cunningness, hypocrisy, and intelligence in seizing opportunities and ingratiating themselves with those above them in rank or as a result of interference from external parties that want them in the Palestinian decision-making center. 

In these individuals lies the problem of the political class and the crisis of the leadership institution as well as the crisis of the Fatah movement, which sparked the contemporary Palestinian revolution. Leadership is not merely a history of struggle or just holding a prominent position in the authority and party or obtaining the title of minister or general or doctor, etc. Rather, it is a comprehensive system: political, ethical, human, rational, and a genuinely effective field presence. Because of this, it must be subject to review, evaluation, accountability, and the activation of the principle of self-criticism.
There is no issue if you criticize a true leader in Fatah, the organization, the authority, or even the president himself, because a great leader embraces everyone and acknowledges their mistakes. Those who practice politics will inevitably make mistakes, and what matters is to learn from those mistakes and listen to their critics, even respecting those who criticize them, as long as the criticism is objective and for the sake of the national interest. 

However, you are surprised by some who are classified as leaders and who hold high positions when they get caught up in a state of arrogance and superiority to the extent that they ignore all the criticisms and observations made by national writers and ordinary citizens either through writing or media statements. They intervene if they feel that such criticism may reveal some of their incorrect behaviors and positions, considering that mentioning them or even pointing to them is a threat to the homeland and nationalism!

For instance, one of these (leaders) may directly or through an intermediary request a writer to delete a post or article that criticizes ambiguous positions he has taken and those of members in the leadership of the organization, Fatah, and the authority, who seek to flatter Hamas and praise the armed resistance in Gaza and even the Al-Aqsa Flood. When the writer attempts to explain to this (leader) that the issue is not personal and that it goes beyond individuals to a phenomenon that harms Fatah and its history and insults the people of Gaza while ignoring their suffering under Hamas rule and its wars, which will negatively impact Fatah's base and strengthen Hamas's position and policies and increase its popularity among supporters in the West Bank... he does not accept this and the matter can escalate to veiled threats. Although the writer did not mention specific names, he believes he is meant in the article or that readers may understand he is the intended target.

We criticize these (leaders) for their hypocrisy and because they do not sincerely believe in the path of armed resistance and its ability to achieve national goals right now and in the manner that Hamas practices it. Rather, they defend Hamas and armed resistance to cover up their inability to do anything for the people of Gaza and their failure to perform their duty of protecting the people in the West Bank from the practices of the occupation. Some exaggerate in praising the resistance to hide their own corruption, and these individuals want to remain in the political scene by any means, even at the expense of the blood of the people of Gaza and the future of the national cause. 

If these individuals were sincere in their position on armed resistance and the Al-Aqsa Flood, why do they not encourage and advocate for armed resistance in the West Bank? Why do they not work towards a flood in the West Bank similar to the Al-Aqsa Flood, while settlements are spreading everywhere, encroaching on citizens' lands and threatening their sources of livelihood? If they did so, they might alleviate the suffering of the people of Gaza and distract the occupation forces, although I fear the serious repercussions of any armed resistance now without an agreed-upon national strategy for resistance, even if it is supported regionally and Arab-wide.

What is happening within Fatah is not a distribution of roles or maintaining a thread of connection with Hamas and other resistance factions but a state of confusion and an attempt by some to gain supporters and followers within the West Bank, where they are losing their popularity. We do not believe they would gamble that the people of Gaza and Gaza's resistance factions can defeat the enemy and achieve what they failed to achieve in the Oslo Agreement?  
Criticizing these individuals, who are few in any case, is not because they are against the occupation, as all Palestinians oppose the occupation, but rather because they ignore the suffering of the people of Gaza under Hamas rule and what their flood has indirectly caused in terms of death, destruction, and hunger, which places them at odds with the position of the majority of the people of Gaza and even in contradiction with President Abu Mazen's position, who described Hamas as "children of dogs" and criticized their flood and called for the disarmament of their militias.

The worst scenario that these individuals might subject Fatah and the organization to in general is accepting a joint administration of Gaza with Hamas. Although this is unlikely due to Israeli rejection, merely hinting at it will face rejection from the residents of the Gaza Strip, who have suffered from Hamas and its militias. By doing so, they will whitewash Hamas and assist in its return to the political scene.