Hamas’ New Attempt to Shape the War Narrative

Overview of the New Publication

In a recent publication titled “Our Narrative: The Flood of Al-Aqsa – Two Years of Steadfastness and Will for Liberation,” Hamas seeks to reshape the narrative surrounding the recent war and to position itself as a legitimate governing entity for Palestinians. This initiative comes in the wake of the October 7 attacks, which resulted in significant loss of life and brought intense international scrutiny and pressure on the organization. As the United States urges all parties to advance to the next stage of the Trump administration’s plan for the region, Hamas is focused on controlling the narrative rather than addressing immediate humanitarian concerns.

Context of the Publication

More than two months into a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the organization has yet to fulfill its obligation to return the Israeli soldier, Sgt. Ron Gully, who is the last captive from Gaza. With the U.S. pushing for progress in the aftermath of the conflict, Hamas refrains from addressing pressing questions about the future governance and rebuilding of the Gaza Strip, which has a population of over two million residents.

The publication aims not only to defend Hamas against accusations of atrocities committed during the conflict but also to counter internal Palestinian and Arab criticism. According to Hamas, the October 7 attack was a necessary act in a long struggle rather than a military miscalculation that prompted a significant Israeli response.

Historical Narrative

The first chapter of Hamas’ publication traces a historical narrative beginning in the British Mandate period, through the War of Independence and the Palestinian Nakba, leading up to recent years. The organization contends that the attack was the culmination of decades of oppression, settlement expansion, political marginalization, and the overall failure of the Oslo Accords.

Hamas describes the pre-war Gaza Strip as experiencing a “persistent siege,” collective punishment, and civil collapse, arguing that Israel was contemplating targeted assassinations of its leaders just before the attack.

Justifications and Claims

Hamas claims that a failure of the international community and the United Nations to effect any change in Israeli policy has made violent confrontation “the only inevitable option.” The publication furthermore asserts that its operatives did not intentionally target civilians during the October 7 attacks, despite extensive evidence to the contrary.

The document positions the attack as a strategic move designed to restore Palestinian agency and assert control, claiming that 72% of Palestinians supported the operation, in stark contrast to the 11% who expressed satisfaction with the Palestinian Authority at that time. This figure originates from a poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

Reactions and Criticism

The publication has drawn harsh criticism from various quarters, including journalist Akram Atta-Allah, who described Hamas’ effort as an attempt to market “political suicide as a national achievement.” He pointed out the disconnect between Hamas’ narrative and the stark realities facing Gaza’s population, highlighted by the destruction of numerous homes and rising death tolls. Atta-Allah warned of a significant rift within Palestinian society, citing the need for accountability amid widespread suffering.

Conclusion

As Hamas implements its strategy to shape public perception and redefine its role, the organization’s reluctance to engage with urgent questions regarding the future of Gaza has raised concerns. The emphasis on historical grievances and strategic justification may serve to bolster its narrative domestically but risks alienating broader Palestinian perspectives focused on recovery and governance in the post-conflict landscape.