After a Jordanian truck driver killed three Israelis at the King Hussein Bridge border crossing in the occupied West Bank last Sunday, Sami Abu Zuhri, the head of Hamas’ foreign political bureau, praised the attack and framed it as a response to the Israeli assault on Gaza.
According to Reuters, he commented saying: “This heroic operation is a natural response to Israel’s genocidal war against the people of Gaza, and it is a new way to get involved in the confrontation.” Hamas has long tried to involve Jordan in this war, but that is not the point I am trying to make here.
Hamas stated yesterday that unless a ceasefire deal is concluded, the Israeli hostages will not see the light of day. One could say that this was predictable; what else could be demanded of Hamas, given the Israeli prime minister's obstinance?
What is demanded is for Hamas to simply follow Hezbollah’s example. The latter seems to have found a solution for seeking a truce with Israel and avoiding war: implementing what Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said about tactical retreats before the enemy being acceptable.
Iran’s Mehr News Agency quoted the Supreme Leader affirming that there is no harm in "tactical retreat" before the enemy, whether militarily or politically. He also asserted that inflating their image and instilling fear is foundational to the enemy’s psychological warfare.
He added: "When such a psychological warfare technique is used by the enemy in the military domain, the result is fear and retreat," stressing that tactical retreat and advance are both valid options and that there is no harm in either.
Now, the Lebanese government has announced that it seeks to engage in indirect negotiations with Israel to avoid war, and we all know that this could not have happened without the approval of Hezbollah, which clearly wants to avoid a conflict.
The other matter is how Iran has dealt with the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran. Here Tehran is, avoiding military retaliation, and the Europeans have even announced that they have received indications of Tehran's willingness to negotiate.
Sending these signals is the second step of Iran's announcement that it wants to negotiate with the West. The first was taken when the Iranian Supreme Leader released a statement just over a week ago that there is no harm in negotiating Iran’s nuclear program with Washington.
Accordingly, we ask: why is Hamas seeking to open a Jordanian front, which poses a real threat to the West Bank, as well as Jordanian and Arab national security, and an existential threat to the Palestinian cause, as Iran and Hezbollah pursue negotiations?
Why doesn't Hamas demand that Sinwar respond by calling for Iranian military intervention either from the country or through Hezbollah, instead of making demands of Jordan or other Arab countries? Indeed, Hamas is constantly singing praises of Iran’s support.
Why doesn't Sinwar follow Hezbollah's example and heed the advice of the Iranian Supreme Leader, thereby protecting what remains of the Palestinian cause, not just Gaza? Why is it acceptable for Iran to make a "tactical retreat" before the enemy, but not for the people of Gaza? Is there an answer?
