Nasser Kandil
Albinaa’ Newspaper August 7, 2024
The consensus of the Hamas Movement’s organizational systems in selecting Commander Yahya Sinwar to succeed the martyred leader, Commander Ismail Haniyeh, was a decision like the Deluge, unusual and unexpected. The twinship between the Deluge and Sinwar preceded this decision, but this decision confirmed that the movement’s leadership, across its spectrum, possesses a collective strategical intelligence which provided a punitive response to the occupying entity and its Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, for the decision of the assassination of the second historical leader of the movement, Ismail Haniyeh, opening the door for a third historical leader, Yahya Sinwar, commander of the two battles of Saif Al Quds (Jerusalem’s Sword) and Al Aqsa Deluge. It barred the possibility of manipulation of its internal unity and the discourse of moderation and extremism should a different successor have been selected, and gave weight to the choice of successor equivalent to the weight given to the assassination.
By selecting Sinwar, what Hamas said was consistent with what the Palestinian population have said by the proven steadfastness and resilience of the tyrannized and grieving people in Gaza, and what polls in Gaza and the West Bank have said about their stance towards Al Aqsa Deluge after 10 months since its launch, with the great majority of Palestinians holding that Al Aqsa Deluge is the biggest national achievement in Palestinian history which prevented the obliteration of the Palestinian Cause and restored to it its radiance, and returned to it a prominent stature impossible to be ignored at the international level. Hamas’ decision to beautify Sinwar as the leader of the movement came as an expression of the popular Palestinian consensus behind the Deluge, because Sinwar and the Deluge are the two faces of a coin.
What Hamas said is that its presidency is neither a political position nor an authoritarian one, nor an expression of conflict between centers of influence or power, nor the extension of external relations. Rather it is a reflection of a stage in the stages of the Palestinian national struggle, which is seen by the movement, from its position of leadership of a national liberation movement, in a liberation war fought by Palestinians, as a stage which has no place from a political, diplomatic, and media perspective except for resistance, part of Hamas’ name, and embodied in the conduct of her historical leaders who have been martyred. Resistance today is symbolized by the Hamas Movement and its course of action, and by joining the two icons of resistance Al Aqsa Deluge and Sinwar together, has been granted opportunities for carrying the Palestinian people from one stage to the next, blocking political interpretations about the fundamental reasons behind the selection and liable of creating confusion, and preventing interference in and weakening of the Movement’s opportunities in shaping the future. Thus came the clear decision as an embodiment of the choice for resistance, given the adherence between Sinwar’s name and Al Aqsa Deluge.
Hamas said with its decision that she stands in a position which is intolerant of extending lines or lengthening already extended ones, appropriate for stages when political action took prominence, while the work of resistance went underground making preparations in readiness for a big confrontation such as the one inaugurated by the Deluge. The significance is that Hamas today is at the forefront of resistance, and has gathered around it an axis composed of countries and resistance movements, and wants to deliver a message of power, cohesion, and tenacity, and that the priority is for Hamas to define her position in the region as one of resistance, which is reinforced by the choice for resistance in countries and political movements, and to confirm the Deluge as a momentous event, and for selecting Sinwar who symbolizes both. In this clear and complete positioning inside Al Mukawama Axis, Hamas has all the opportunities necessary for gleaning the expected and highest possible yield. The symbolism here is the crowning of Sinwar by consensus as a headline for Hamas’ choices.
A new deluge begins with the inauguration of Sinwar a historical leader for the national Palestinian project, at a time when an honest and sincere resistance movement like Hamas does not need a power duality between a decision maker in war and another in the center of the political scene. Since negotiating, ceasefire, and war tactics are under Sinwar’s purview, having someone else in the forefront of the political scene would be meaningless. Should some logistical matter require foreign participation, regulatory mechanisms allow the movement’s Head and Commander to compensate for his absence on foreign territory by delegating to assistants and deputies foreign-related matters, with the execution of any delegated matter based on the principle of consistency with the field decisions, especially that what battle field commanders have to say constitutes 75% of situation assessments, turning politicians and media people, even in the position of leadership, into consultants or assistants. Such humility in Hamas’ leaders, who in considering their responsibilities, prioritize the highest good over their positions, titles, and power symbols, expressing the authenticity and nobleness endemic in the formation of the movement, which has to be credited for the consensus in such a historic decision.
What is certain is that the spirit of the martyr Ismail Haniyeh was present and voted for the choice of Sinwar, and that the others called upon Haniyeh’s spirit for consultation and advice, just like they used to do when facing momentous decisions, and felt comforted in abiding by his advice not to have any hesitation in voting by consensus for Sinwar.
