Samer Sinijlawi, a Fatah political activist, recently argued in The Jerusalem Post that Hamas’s reported willingness to transfer governing authority in Gaza could represent the first real step toward replacing militant rule with functioning institutions capable of eventually enforcing disarmament.
He contends that the key issue is not how many weapons Hamas surrenders, but whether it is truly willing to relinquish political power.
Sinijlawi warns against dismissing an imperfect opportunity, arguing that many observers abroad misunderstand the realities on the ground in Gaza.
As someone who has traveled in and around Gaza 10 times over the last two-and-a-half years, including witnessing firsthand the atrocities of October 7, I approach this issue not only with emotion but with the clear-eyed perspective of someone who regularly briefs members of Congress on advancing American national security interests and understands the necessity of remaining analytical rather than ideological.
Hamas is not an isolated phenomenon. It represents one branch of a broader worldwide Islamist movement that America and many of its Muslim and Jewish allies have confronted for decades. The Shi’ite version is embodied by Iran and Hezbollah. The Sunni version includes al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the more politically sophisticated Muslim Brotherhood networks supported by states such as Qatar and Turkey.
Most victims of Islamist extremism are Muslims themselves, yet this reality is often minimized in Western discourse and the mainstream media because it complicates the simplistic narrative of oppressed Islamists versus colonialist powers.
There are, however, exceptions. Mansour Abbas and the southern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel have demonstrated a willingness to participate within the framework of a Jewish state and publicly condemned the October 7.
Such actors should be judged pragmatically and individually, not automatically grouped together with jihadist organizations.
This issue will likely be front and center in the fall of 2026, when the Israeli opposition confronts the challenge of forming a coalition without Abbas’s Ra’am Party.
US President Donald Trump deserves credit for helping secure the release of Israeli hostages and for supporting Israel’s military campaign, which has given the IDF control over large portions of Gaza.
Yet Washington’s understandable desire for diplomatic progress in Gaza before the midterm elections, especially with the Iranian front likely to remain unresolved, could create pressure for premature concessions in Gaza: territorial withdrawals, insufficient oversight of reconstruction funds, and inadequate vetting of populations returning from Hamas-controlled areas.
My discussions with Israeli intelligence officers operating in Gaza this year indicate that Hamas continues to systematically steal humanitarian and commercial aid, tax it at exorbitant rates, and intimidate and torture civilians behind the scenes. In addition, the IDF remains skeptical that clear distinctions can reliably be made between Hamas operatives and supposedly unaffiliated civilians being screened for entry into the Green Zone from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
America remains in the early chapters of a long struggle against radical Islamist movements – jihadist, Salafist, and Muslim Brotherhood alike. Dismissing these concerns as mere prejudice or “Islamophobia” risks repeating the mistakes of those in the 1930s who viewed Nazism as a distant European problem rather than a global ideological threat.
Hamas's promises should not be accepted at face value
Pragmatism, therefore, should not mean accepting Hamas’s promises at face value. Hamas has historically viewed temporary compromise as tactical, practicing taqiyya (religiously sanctioned dissimulation). The challenge is not achieving a final resolution with Hamas, but, rather, managing expectations realistically, containing the threat, and gradually building alternative institutions.
At present, only the IDF possesses the operational capability and willingness to disrupt Hamas’s military infrastructure. This requires a permanent buffer zone along the Gaza border area, sustained freedom of action, and robust enforcement mechanisms against violations.
Any future governance arrangement in Gaza must proceed from a sober assumption: Hamas will continue operating behind the scenes through intimidation, infiltration, and coercion. Ignoring that reality would constitute diplomatic and security negligence.
Progress in Gaza, if it comes, will likely be incremental, measured in years, perhaps decades. Islamist radicalization was not created overnight; it developed over generations through political indoctrination, religious extremism, and educational systems that normalized violence. Long-term stability will require not only security enforcement but profound educational and institutional reform.
President Trump, Gaza is unlikely to deliver a quick political victory. The more consequential strategic victory lies elsewhere: in supporting the Iranian people against the regime that funds, arms, and sustains groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Weakening the Iranian regime would, in turn, weaken its network of proxies and remain the most effective path toward reducing long-term instability across the Middle East.
As The Wall Street Journal wrote in its editorial “The Truth About Hamas,” discussing the report “Silenced No More” by the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children:
“Later, he saw ‘a beautiful woman with the face of an angel and 8 or 10 fighters beating and raping her.’ The last one shot her in the head.” Each victim described was a civilian noncombatant. Another survivor testified that he was gang-raped at the Supernova music festival site, later providing medical records and detailed testimony: “They laughed, they were really pleased, as if I were their sex doll.”
According to the report, Hamas terrorists carried operational phrase sheets translating commands into Hebrew, such as “take off your clothes,” “lie down,” and “spread your legs.” These were not spontaneous acts of brutality. They reflected years of indoctrination and dehumanization that taught generations of Palestinians to view Jews not as human beings but as legitimate targets for humiliation, torture, and murder.
A movement built on such ideology cannot be reformed into a responsible political actor. It can only be contained, dismantled, and ultimately replaced.
The writer is director of the Middle East Political Information Network and senior security editor of The Jerusalem Report. He frequently briefs Congress, think tanks, and the State Department on Middle East affairs and their impact on US national security.