Hamas Protests in the Context of the Political Engineering of the Israeli Occupation

Following the launch of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood in the early hours of October 7, 2023, Israel’s attacks on Gaza did not merely constitute a series of military operations, but rather manifested as a form of warfare that deeply impacted the social fabric, media discourse, and international public opinion. In the aftermath of this process, Israel’s genocidal policy was implemented in Gaza, and a ceasefire was reached between the parties on January 19, 2025. However, Israel violated the ceasefire and resumed its acts of genocide. The protests that have emerged since the second week of March 2025—framed by Western media as “anti-Hamas protests” — may at first appear to be a natural response to the trauma experienced by the population. Yet, upon closer examination, it becomes clearer how these demonstrations havebeen manipulated within the discursive arena and situated within particular geopolitical contexts.

Context of the Protests

The protests that took place particularly in the northern regions of Gaza, in cities such as Beit Lahiya, revolved around legitimate demands including the end of the war, cessation of forced displacement, and the fulfillment of basic humanitarian needs. Protesters speaking to Al Jazeera reported holding banners with slogans such as “The blood of our children is not cheap,” “End the war,” and “We want to live,” expressing their resistance to the threats of death, hunger, and displacement. These demands can be seen as a reflection of a humanitarian quest, pointing to the physical and emotional collapse experienced by the people. Therefore, it becomes evident that, contrary to Western portrayals, the protests were more anti-Israel and anti-war in nature than anti-Hamas.

However, the media emphasis on certain slogans expressed during the protests—such as the call for Hamas to step down—contains strong indications that these demonstrations were being used within a framework of geopolitical engineering. The fact that Western media outlets (such as Foreign Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, etc.) headlined the protests simultaneously suggests that they were presented to international public opinion within a specific political framing. In particular, public statements of support for theprotests by Israeli army spokespersons, along with Israeli media’s portrayal of the protests with headlines such as “The people of Gaza do not want Hamas,” indicate that these protests were far more than a spontaneous popular movement.

One fundamental reality overlooked in this process is Hamas’s position regarding its governance of Gaza. Throughout 2024, Hamas welcomed an Egyptian proposal for post-warGaza to be governed by a neutral technocratic government or an independent administrative committee, and publicly declared its abdication of governance responsibilities. In this context, Given Hamas’s public declaration that it would not continue to govern Gaza—whether elections were held or not—the demand for its resignation becomes contextually irrelevant.This suggests that the content of the protests is disconnected from the political reality on the ground and potentially directed by specific actors. Targeting a movement that has already declared its withdrawal from governance raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the protests.

The Shadow of Foreign Intervention

Another striking aspect of the protests is the identity of certain individuals reported to have participated in the demonstrations. Among them are figures such as Hisham Birawi, the former Gaza representative of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), who is known to be close to Mohammed Dahlan and currently resides in the United Arab Emirates. The in volvement of such actors suggests that the demonstrations were shaped not as a spontaneous civic reaction, but rather through the orchestration of external forces.

Mohammed Dahlan’s name is associated with a coup plan organized against Hamas in 2008. It is known that this plan was financed by the UAE, and that then U.S. President George W. Bush referred to Dahlan as “this is our man.” Hamas thwarted the coup attempt and neutralized Dahlan by expelling him from Gaza. However, the reemergence of these same actors today suggests that the current process may be orchestrated by international and regional forces.

In 2013, an article titled “The Call for Rebellion against Hamas in Gaza” was published by pro-Israeli think tanks, in which Dahlan and senior PLO officials Majid Faraj and Azzam al-Ahmad called on the people of Gaza to rise up against Hamas. These appeals bear rhetorical resemblance to the protests currently taking shape on the ground.

Media Discourse and Tribal Allegations

The simultaneous coverage of the protests by Western and Israeli media suggests the implementation of a coordinated media framing strategy. These outlets also claimed that the protests were organized by certain tribal leaders in northern Gaza. However, the identities of these tribes, the extent to which they resonate with the public, and their level of social representation remain unclear.

At this point, it is a well-documented fact that Israel has previously made contact with tribal structures in an effort to establish an alternative administration to Hamas. This strategy can be seen as an extension of Israel’s broader effort to dismantle the bond between the people of Gaza and the resistance movement. The use of tribes in this process supports the view that the protests have been shaped not by internal dynamics, but by external strategic agendas.

Protests in the Context of the Legitimacy of the Resistance

It is natural that among the people of Gaza there are individuals with differing political orientations who did not vote for Hamas. In democratic societies, protest is regarded as a legitimate right. However, in a geography under occupation like Palestine, the use of such protests by the occupying power as a tool of legitimization deepens the political consequences of these actions.

In the past, Hamas publicly issued statements of apology for the civilian casualties that occurred during the October 7 operation and expressed its understanding of the people’s suffering. However, manipulating these criticisms in a way that renders Israel’s occupationinvisible may strip the protests of their legitimacy.

Israel’s objective is not limited to dismantling Hamas; it also seeks to destroy armed resistance, public support, and social cohesion. In this context, deliberate attacks on civilianare as should be seen as part of a multilayered strategy designed to produce not only military outcomes, but also psychological and social consequences.

Conclusion

The protests in Gaza may have emerged as a natural reflex in response to the severe humanitarian conditions and the exhaustion caused by the war. However, the way the seprotests are discursively framed and the actors who endorse them play a decisive role in understanding their true nature. The simultaneous portrayal of the protests in Western andIsraeli media as an “anti-Hamas uprising” increases suspicions that these events serve particular political agendas.

Despite Hamas’s declared decision not to govern Gaza, the continued presentation of demands for its withdrawal from power as a justification for protest may lead to the interpretation that public reactions are externally directed and used for the purpose of political engineering. The reemergence of figures such as Mohammed Dahlan during this process further supports interpretations that a modernized version of past coup attempts is being staged.

Ultimately, distinguishing between legitimate civilian reactions and the manipulative effects of foreign interventions in the protests is critically important for the sustainability and sociallegitimacy of the Palestinian resistance. Assessing whether the protests reflect genuine public demands or function as discursive tools of the occupation must take into account the actors involved, the timing, the form of discourse, and the coordination of media coverage. Only through such an approach can a meaningful distinction be made between foreign interventions that threaten the legitimacy of the resistance and the just demands of the people.