Pitfalls of the Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation

The Fatah-Hamas reconciliation announced on October 12 may sound like a breakthrough, but many questions remain. Of course any progress bridging the two sides is a welcome development for people in Gaza, who have suffered since 2007 from Israel’s cruel blockade and, more recently, from the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) draconian cuts to their electricity and salaries. However, the longer-term effects of a Hamas-Fatah rapprochement – if done in an incomplete way – may be more devastating than what Palestinians experience today.1

For instance, the establishment of a dual political system in the Gaza Strip, meaning partisan sharing in public sector institutions, would pose a major risk. In such a system, figures from Hamas and Fatah would ostensibly share control of ministries and other government offices, but in reality would command separate sections within PA institutions. This could lead to a situation in which the deep differences between the parties could spark tension and violence worse than what occurred in 2007.

Such a situation would benefit Israel, which uses the Fatah-Hamas split to claim that the Palestinians are unequipped to run a state. This allows Israel to more easily continue its project of settlement building and apartheid. Yet even if Fatah and Hamas work together peacefully in Gaza, the current steps being taken toward reconciliation could lead to the establishment of a dubious Palestinian “state:” an entity with its central government based in Gaza, along with carved up West Bank cantons. This solution may suit Israel as well as the United States, which currently envisions resolving the Palestinian issue in the context of a regional settlement between Arab states and Israel, but it would shatter the Palestinians’ hopes for a state based on the 1967 borders, or one state with equal rights for all.

To avoid these pitfalls and for Fatah and Hamas to work together toward genuine self-determination and rights for the Palestinian people, these steps should be taken:  

  • Fatah and Hamas leaders must focus on national unity and consensus regarding Palestinian national goals. Their shared understanding of the current stage of the Palestinian struggle and what is needed to further it will enable the Palestinians to unite to counter Israel and its strategy of imposing increased fragmentation on the West Bank.
  • A sticking point between the parties is the issue of weapons and Hamas’s military wing. Before 1982, the Palestinians had a high military council, headed by Yasser Arafat, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) steered the council’s decisions. In a 2011 Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement, which failed, the formation of such a military council in the form of a high security committee was mentioned, and this should be revived. With a united political program and leadership guiding the council, weapons would not be in the hands of discrete factions that could then fight each other, but would be for the defense of the Palestinian people as a whole as a means of deterring Israeli aggression.
  • Hamas should draw on the example of the Ennahda movement in Tunisia and agree to cede power, though with the condition that they will have a seat at the political table. This means that the PA must allow Hamas’s participation in the PLO, its Executive Committee, the Palestinian National Council, and the Palestinian Legislative Council when it is reconvened. Hamas should exercise their right to participate in elections even if they pledge not to form a new government in the event that they win.
  1. Al-Shabaka publishes all its content in both English and Arabic (see Arabic text here). To read this piece in French, please click here. Al-Shabaka is grateful for the efforts by human rights advocates to translate its pieces, but is not responsible for any change in meaning.
Khalil Shaheen is a Palestinian Journalist, media expert, researcher, and well-known political and media analyst. He is currently the director of research and policies and...
(2017, October 18)

Latest Analysis

 Politics
For two years, Israel has inflicted mass starvation, staggering death tolls, and relentless destruction on Gaza and its inhabitants. International efforts to recognize Israeli war crimes and halt the eradication of the Palestinian people continue to lag and fall short. On September 16, 2025, the UN Commission of Inquiry confirmed what Palestinians have identified since the outset: Israel is committing genocide. On September 29, US President Donald Trump unveiled a proposal that promises a ceasefire but subordinates Palestinians in Gaza to external governance, denies them self-determination, and entrenches Israeli control over the land. Framed as a peace initiative, the plan is in fact an attempt by the US to shield the Israeli regime from accountability, exemplifying Western complicity in the colonization of Palestine and the extermination of its people. In this context, Hamas’s agreement to release all Israeli captives signals its commitment to ending the ongoing violence, while simultaneously shifting the onus onto the Israeli regime and the Trump administration to clarify and operationalize their commitments to the ceasefire process. This Focus On gathers Al-Shabaka’s analyses from the past year, offering urgent context to understand the genocide and its regional impact. It traces the Israeli regime’s expansionist campaign across Gaza, the West Bank, and the wider region, exposing Western complicity not only in enabling its crimes but also in protecting it from justice. At the same time, it highlights initiatives that resist Israeli impunity while advancing accountability and genuine liberation.
 Politics
This policy memo shows how China’s “biased impartiality,” which privileges the Israeli regime, drives its strategic distancing from the genocide in Gaza. This position is not simply the result of US dominance over Israel-related affairs but a calculated decision to protect China’s long-term interests. By calling for Palestinian unity without exerting pressure on the Israeli government, Beijing shields its ties with the Zionist state under the guise of restraint. In addition, it deflects responsibility for stopping the genocide onto the UN Security Council, casting ceasefire, humanitarian access, and prisoner release as obligations for others in order to absolve itself of direct accountability.
Razan Shawamreh· Sep 16, 2025
 Politics
The erasure of Indigenous populations lies at the core of settler-colonial narratives. These narratives aim to deny existing geographies, communities, and histories to justify the displacement and replacement of one people by another. The Zionist project is no exception. Among Zionism’s founding myths is the claim that it “made the desert bloom” and that Tel Aviv, its crown jewel, arose from barren sand dunes—an uninhabitable void transformed by pioneering settlers. This framing obscures the fact that the colonial regime initially built Tel Aviv on the outskirts of Yaffa (Jaffa), a thriving Palestinian city with a rich cultural life and a booming orange trade. The “dunes” description projects emptiness and conceals the vibrant agricultural and social life that flourished in the area. By casting the land as uninhabitable until redeemed by settlers, this narrative helped justify dispossession and colonial expansion. This process intensified after 1948, when Tel Aviv absorbed the lands of ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages, including al-Sumayil, Salame, Shaykh Muwannis, and Abu Kabir, and ultimately extended into the city of Yaffa. This same settler-colonial discourse drives the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, where destruction is reframed through the narrative of “uninhabitability.” Gaza is increasingly depicted as a lifeless ruin—a framing that is far from neutral. This commentary contends that “uninhabitable” is a politically charged term that masks culpability, reproduces colonial erasure, and shapes policy and public perception in ways that profoundly affect Palestinian lives and futures. It examines the origins, function, and implications of this discourse within the logic of settler colonialism, calling for a radical shift in language from narratives that obscure violence to those affirming Palestinian presence, history, and sovereignty.
Abdalrahman Kittana· Aug 27, 2025
Skip to content