“They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.” Israeli President Isaac Herzog ought to know better than to have said that. Yet those who do not — those who had no call to pay attention to Palestinian politics until a month ago — might be forgiven for asking why Hamas has never faced a serious uprising from within their Gazan redoubt in the 17 years it has ruled the strip.
That it has not allows some, in Israel and elsewhere, to suggest that the majority of the 2.3 million Palestinians who are confined to the 139 square miles of Gaza must approve of the terrorist group’s actions, including the horrific attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7. To follow this line of reasoning is to conclude that all Gazans are complicit in terror. “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Herzog told reporters a few days after the attack. “This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true.
Herzog, remember, is from the liberal side of the Israeli political establishment: A former head of the Labor Party, he unsuccessfully ran against the right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the 2015 parliamentary elections. In 2021, he was elected to the largely ceremonial presidency, a role that requires him to act as Israel’s moral north star.
Those unburdened by such responsibility and hewing to the opposite end of the political spectrum have gone much farther than Herzog in placing collective blame for Hamas’s crimes on all Gazans — and proposing collective punishment. In the most extreme instance of this absurd syllogism, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu implied that dropping an atomic bomb on the strip was an option.
So why have Gazans not risen up against Hamas? Before I address that question, please permit a short detour to explain how Hamas came to rule the strip.
The group won the last election to be held in Gaza and the West Bank, in 2006. Back then, Hamas was identified mainly as a radical offshoot of the Islamist, pan-Arab Muslim Brotherhood political movement, but its main attraction to voters was being an alternative to Fatah, the faction running the Palestinian Authority (PA) — the deeply corrupt and inept government responsible for the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas’ election campaign leaned heavily on the corruption issue, which resonated with voters.
The prospect of Islamists running the PA alarmed Israel as well as the US. Yet Fatah contested the results and the two groups fought pitched battles. When the dust settled in 2007, Fatah was left in control of the PA, but its remit was restricted to the West Bank. Hamas was supreme in Gaza.
Hamas did not take long to prove it was as venal and incompetent as Fatah, with its unstinting opposition to Israel being its only source of legitimacy. Its goal, stated in a revised charter issued in 2017, was the destruction of the state of Israel. Armed and trained by Iran, its fighters periodically clashed with the Israel Defense Forces, bringing devastation upon Gaza.
In the meantime, Hamas cemented its control by systematically eliminating all opposition. It maintains a network of spies, informers and enforcers, and exercises a monopoly of violence. Human rights groups like Amnesty International raised alarms about a “brutal campaign of abductions, torture and unlawful killings” against Palestinians. Invariably, the victims were blamed for being in cahoots with Israel.
With Gaza essentially sealed off from the wider world by Israeli restrictions on travel and trade, Hamas also took control of the economy as the principal employer and paymaster of Palestinians. It decides how foreign aid is doled out, and its leaders siphon out large sums into an international portfolio of investments. Meanwhile, it cracks down on Gazans complaining about economic hardship.
Ismail Haniyeh, who heads the group’s political bureau, claims Hamas’ actions represent Gazans. Yet after 17 years of Hamas rule, Gazans have few political rights or civil liberties. The vast majority are too young to have participated in the 2006 election, and none have had a chance to vote Hamas out.
Given the chance, would they? We could only know for certain when — or if — a free and fair election were to be allowed. To the extent that poll opinions in a populace that lives in fear are possible, there is some evidence that Gazans would like Hamas gone. A recent survey by the Washington Institute showed that a large majority want the PA to rule Gaza. This result is doubly remarkable given that the Fatah leadership has only gone from bad to worse since it last had any authority over Gaza.
To expect Gazans to rise up against Hamas would be to require them to risk their lives and livelihoods, to face down a terrorist group that has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to slaughter Palestinians as well as Israelis. While Hamas could also rely on a regional power, Iran, to supply it with arms, the only thing Gazans could expect from the wider world is qualified sympathy — and unreasonable expectations.
Bobby Ghosh is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering culture. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS