logo
Amid the ceasefire wrangling, how popular is Hamas in Gaza now?

Amid the ceasefire wrangling, how popular is Hamas in Gaza now?

The Guardian11-02-2025

Of the many factors that will determine the fate of the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, one of the most difficult to quantify and predict is the level of popular support for Hamas.
On Monday, Hamas threatened to delay the release of further Israeli hostages, accusing Israel of breaches of the ceasefire deal. The uncertainty, just over halfway into the ceasefire's six-week first phase, complicates talks on the far more difficult second phase. It also jeopardises the pause in the devastating fighting and the increase in humanitarian aid for Gaza that the truce has made possible.
Some analysts believe that Hamas initially made the concessions that helped bring about the ceasefire in part because it is sensitive to public opinion among Palestinians in Gaza, and recognised that to continue the conflict could cause it lasting damage.
The same holds true during the fragile ceasefire, with Hamas keen to get credit for continued calm and and avoid blame in the event of a return to hostilities.
That Hamas still has a powerful presence in Gaza despite massive damage done in Israel's offensive seems clear. Successive handovers of Israeli hostages have been carefully choreographed to showcase the militant group's military power, but Hamas has also deployed hundreds of officials from the municipal authorities it still controls to clear rubble, rehabilitate clinics, reopen schools and monitor markets.
Aid workers in Gaza report that many of their pre-war contacts in the local administration are back in their posts.
'Hamas are pretty visible on the streets. Police are back on the beat and patrolling main junctions. Ministries are also reopening. It's like the war never happened in some ways,' said one senior UN official last week.
But experts point out that the widespread presence of Hamas does not imply extensive support.
'The level of control is not a measure of popularity,' said Hugh Lovatt, a specialist in Palestinian politics at the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'We have polling data over the years and, though there are always caveats, there is still a consistent historical trend and that is that support for Hamas tends to hover around the mid-30s in percentage terms.'
An unpublished survey conducted just before the ceasefire last month revealed an apparent decline in levels of support for Hamas, though it remains the most popular party in Gaza.
The new survey, carried out by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), asked people in the territory if they supported 'very extreme actions' to protect and defend Palestine.
'This was on a continuous scale and roughly 25% were above the midpoint in support of extreme violence, so a minority,' said Scott Atran, the anthropologist who oversaw the research.
When asked what would be a 'realistic and acceptable' ending to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, just under half of the population said some division of territory between Israel and Palestine, either along the pre-1967 borders or those suggested by the UN in 1947, while slightly more than half preferred a dissolution of Israel, with a single Palestinian state under Islamic law the most preferred solution of all. The least preferred was a single democratic state with equal rights for Arabs and Jews.
The survey also showed that a significant proportion feel that rule by Islamic law – a key part of the ideology of Hamas – is important and that around half believe that a military solution is more likely than a diplomatic solution. For most in Gaza too, the Palestinian-Israel conflict is primarily religious rather than political, the survey suggested.
Atran said: 'Hamas has only the support of a fifth of the population – a steep decline from a March 2024 PCPSR poll that showed majority support for Hamas in Gaza. In fact, the most frequent response on leadership was that no one truly represents the Palestinian people … So there is an evident leadership gap.
'Yet, the survey also indicates that Gazans – women as much as men, old and young – are willing to sacrifice for their land and sovereignty, including to fight and die, even at the cost of their own family safety and security … or the promise of a better life elsewhere.'
A significant problem for researchers is that few in Gaza are prepared to openly criticise Hamas. The movement, which seized control of Gaza violently in 2007 after winning an election, has a long history of ruthless repression of dissidents.
A poll by PCPSR released in September shows 39% in Gaza supported the attacks by Hamas into Israel in October 2023 which triggered the conflict, 32 percentage points lower than six months earlier. Hamas killed 1,200, mostly civilians, and abducted 250 in the attack, while the ensuing Israeli offensive cost the lives of more than 48,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and devastated swaths of the territory.
'It is important to note that support for [the 2023 attack] does not necessarily mean support for Hamas and does not mean support for any killings or atrocities committed against civilians,' the PCPSR said, pointing out that up to 90% of respondents 'believe that Hamas … did not commit the atrocities depicted in videos taken on that day'.
Instead, the pollsters said, support for the 2023 attack was motivated by how the attack had focused regional and global attention on Palestinian grievances.
The poll also found that 36% in Gaza chose 'armed struggle' as the most effective way to end Israeli occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state, the lowest level since September 2022. Hamas was the preferred political party of 35% of respondents, down slightly.
In the immediate aftermath of the ceasefire last month, some residents expressed pride that Hamas had survived the onslaught.
'Name me one country that could withstand Israel's war machine for 15 months,' said Salah Abu Rezik, a 58-year-old factory worker. He praised Hamas for helping to distribute aid to hungry people in Gaza during the conflict and trying to enforce a measure of security, describing Hamas as 'an idea' that could not be killed.
But others voiced anger that Hamas's attack had brought destruction to Gaza.
'We had homes and hotels and restaurants. We had a life. Today we have nothing, so what kind of a victory is this? When the war stops, Hamas must not rule Gaza alone,' said Ameen, 30, a Gaza City civil engineer, who was living in Khan Younis.
To prevent such views spreading further, Hamas will need to divert blame if the ceasefire collapses.
One accusation made by Hamas on Monday was that Israel was deliberately hindering the entry of stipulated amounts of aid, such as 60,000 mobile houses and 200,000 tents, as well as heavy machinery to remove rubble, and fuel. Help with the humanitarian crisis and reconstruction is a priority for most in Gaza. Israel denies the charge.
Lovatt said successive polls among Palestinians showed that 'there would always be space for a conservative, Islamist-leaning party' in Gaza and the occupied West Bank too.
'So even if you get rid of Hamas or it moderates further then there is potentially a segment of this Islamist support base which will look for a new political home,' he said.
'If you exile or kill the leadership, you are not addressing the challenge of this limited if substantial conservative Islamist base. If you want a credible political track you need to integrate that constituency.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pro-Palestinian protester in two-tier police row is Islamist refugee
Pro-Palestinian protester in two-tier police row is Islamist refugee

Telegraph

time2 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Pro-Palestinian protester in two-tier police row is Islamist refugee

A pro-Palestinian activist who evaded terror charges in a two-tier policing row is an Islamist propagandist granted asylum in Britain, The Telegraph can reveal. The demonstrator, who avoided prosecution after chanting ' I love the 7th of October ' at a London rally last year, can now be named as Mohammad al-Mail, a 27-year-old Kuwaiti national granted refugee status in the UK in 2017. In May, The Telegraph published footage of Mr Mail glorifying the Hamas massacre and shouting, 'I like an organisation that starts with H' through a megaphone at an anti-Israel protest in Swiss Cottage, north-west London, last September. He was later arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences but never charged. By contrast, a Jewish man who attended a counter-protest on the same day and briefly held a placard mocking Hezbollah's leader was charged after police claimed the sign could cause 'distress' to terrorist sympathisers. It took eight months for the Crown Prosecution Service to admit there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The Telegraph can now reveal that Mr Mail claimed he avoided prosecution by telling counter-terrorism officers that the 'H' in his chant stood for the Home Office, rather than Hamas. In footage obtained by The Telegraph – which police confirmed they had not seen – Mr Mail appears to boast of misleading investigators. In an Arabic-language podcast aired in March, he said the case 'fell apart' after he gave what appeared to be a knowingly false answer when asked: 'Who do you mean by the letter H?' He said: 'Immediately, I answered, 'It could be the Home Office', you know, the ministry of the interior. 'I love the ministry of the interior', and so on. 'Truly, as the saying goes, 'The worst calamity is the one that makes you laugh'', he joked, adding that officers 'wanted to delve into the depths of my conscience to know what I truly believe'. The Metropolitan Police twice referred his case to the CPS but he was never charged. A source familiar with the case said prosecutors declined to bring charges, fearing it would be 'speculation' to infer support for a proscribed group from his chant. The Telegraph can also reveal that Mr Mail's support for terror groups was not limited to the Sept 20 protest. Since being granted asylum, he has used the Upper Hand Organisation, his campaign group, to promote an Islamist ideology fundamentally at odds with British democratic values. In the same podcast, he urged supporters to 'seize opportunities' created by the October 7 attack – the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. 'Not every day is like October 7,' he said. 'If an opportunity arises, we must fully exploit it. If you strike, make it hurt.' His website hosts a string of Islamist manifestos and incendiary texts. He has criticised Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and HTS, the Syrian group, for being too pragmatic and failing to advance global jihad. He wrote that such groups have 'ultimately succumbed to the international system and failed to bring about significant change to the concept of jihad itself – jihad, which is understood as a struggle to establish Sharia on earth'. Mr Mail has promoted the jihadist cause online and distributed leaflets and stickers at protests. On Aug 17 2024, the Upper Hand Organisation issued a pamphlet titled Wake Up! Protect the Honour of Islam, which portrayed the Israel-Palestine conflict as a 'war of faith'. It glorifies jihad, urges mobilisation, and repeats the slogan 'a new Khaybar awaits' – a phrase often used to incite violence against Jews. The document claims his group is 'committed to channelling resources toward strategic projects to achieve Islamic dominance'. On Nov 11 2024, Mr Mail announced he would surrender to police over his chants but told supporters to 'continue the path of jihad'. He described peaceful Muslims as 'slaves and dwarves' and issued a warning to Britain: 'What is coming to you is terrifying – either our annihilation or yours.' In recent months, he has used his platform to lobby Parliament to de-proscribe Hamas and divert taxpayer funds to sharia courts. He also opposes the banning of child marriage, arguing it discriminates against 16 and 17-year-old Muslim girls. In a statement to The Telegraph, the Met said it was unaware of Mr Mail's apparent admission and record of Islamist advocacy until contacted by this newspaper. A spokesman said the force 'does not believe the material provided to us was known to officers at the time of their initial investigation. It did not form part of the case put to the CPS'. 'Officers will carefully review it to identify any offences so the appropriate action can be taken.' The case has been condemned as an example of two-tier policing, deepening embarrassment for Scotland Yard and raising concerns over national security among senior politicians and extremism experts. On Friday evening, Chris Philp, the shadow policing minister, said that, in light of The Telegraph's latest revelations, 'the police must urgently re-investigate the incident with a view to re-arresting the man concerned'. He added: 'I am deeply worried that someone came here, was granted asylum and then abused the UK's generosity by expressing extremist views. This is why our human rights and asylum laws need to be changed.' His comments were echoed by Lord Walney, the Government's former extremism tsar, who described the latest evidence uncovered by this newspaper as 'disturbing and raises serious questions for the Metropolitan Police'. 'The fact officers were apparently unaware of this open source material when they submitted the case to the Crown Prosecution Service suggests an alarming lack of rigour in their initial investigation,' he said. 'In light of this, it is vital that the police reopen the case to ensure national security can be protected.' The Jewish counter-protester, who was charged for 'causing distress', said the revelations were yet more evidence of 'two-tier policing'. The CPS dropped the case against him last month, eight months after he was first arrested. 'The police were sufficiently well-resourced to know I'd be at the counter-protest the following week and to circulate my photograph among officers on the ground so they could arrest me. Yet counter-terror police were apparently unable to carry out a basic Google search on this man before interviewing him,' he said. The CPS said it is urgently reviewing its decision not to press charges against Mr Mail. The Upper Hand Organisation, which he founded in 2012, was already active in Kuwait when Mr Mail arrived in Britain. During his studies, he was convicted in absentia of 13 offences by the Gulf state, including defaming the Emir and spreading subversive ideas, receiving a combined sentence of 53 years. He said these were politically and religiously motivated and was granted asylum in the UK on May 5 2017. He later received a partial pardon but remains in the UK. A Home Office spokesman said: 'Supporting a proscribed organisation is a serious criminal offence. The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, including determining whether an offence has been committed or not, is a matter for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, who are operationally independent. 'It is our longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases.'

Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal
Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal

The National

time3 hours ago

  • The National

Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal

And yet Benjamin Netanyahu – the Israeli prime minister subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant – has been accused of forging this alliance by the Israeli political class. And yet – once again – the Westminster media has overwhelmingly failed to cover this latest profoundly revealing scandal. Avigdor Lieberman is a far-right opposition leader who once served as Netanyahu's deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister. This week, he publicly announced: 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister.' Did Netanyahu come out swinging, accusing his opponent of antisemitism, as he did when another opposition leader, former Israeli general Yair Golan, declared that Israel was killing babies as a hobby? READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely He did not. Instead, Netanyahu bragged that 'Israel is working to defeat Hamas in various ways, on the recommendation of all heads of the security establishment'. In a video message, he clarified that Israel had 'activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas', shamelessly calling it 'a good thing' which was saving the lives of Israeli soldiers. 'What's wrong with that?' We're talking here about a militia headed by a man named Yasser Abu Shabab. He styles his faction as the 'Anti Terror Service', but it is a criminal gang operating in an area of Rafah firmly under Israeli military control. His own family has not only disowned him, but backed his execution. According to Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada, his militia is composed of 300 'drug dealers and criminals.' And here's the important detail. To justify imposing a total siege on Gaza, Israel claimed that Hamas was stealing humanitarian food. Among those pointing out this wasn't true was Cindy McCain, widow of the late hawkish Republican senator John McCain, and now director of the World Food Programme. But we do know that Shabab's Israel-backed gang has been stealing aid. As ever with the Israeli authorities: every accusation is a confession. This is just another plank of Israel's starvation policy. But again, the Western media has overwhelmingly failed to clearly spell out what Israel is actually doing. Having imposed a total siege on Gaza since March 2, Israel set up a US-backed shadow entity named the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to explicitly supplant the UN. It hasn't just been rejected by every aid agency – even the US marine who heads it resigned on the basis it contradicted the basic principles of humanitarianism. The Foundation set three aid checkpoints in the south in an effort to concentrate Gaza's entire population into a confined area – a concentration camp. Too little aid was delivered, much of it unusable given the siege on cooking materials. But in any case, the Israeli military repeatedly fired on starving Palestinians. In the words of Tory MP Kit Malthouse, the UN system had been replaced with a 'shooting range, an abattoir'. But when the Israeli military massacred dozens of starving Palestinians, they deployed their usual strategy: deceive, deflect, deny, distort. Even though the shootings happened in an Israeli military zone, and despite the overwhelming evidence of Israeli lies, the Western media indulged Israeli claims that Hamas was responsible as if they were credible. CNN belatedly published a clear rebuttal of Israeli lies, but attention had already moved on. As ever, the Western media overall fail to allow Israeli responsibility for atrocities to stick. And yet now, even as Yair Lapid – the main opposition leader – states Netanyahu is 'giving weapons to organisations close to ISIS in Gaza', this latest plank of Israel's starvation strategy barely gets any coverage. This is despite Israel's 'Hamas is ISIS' campaign long being used to justify the genocide. This all fits a classic pattern, of course. Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas in the 1980s in order to undermine its public enemy number one at the time, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. More recently, Netanyahu worked with Qatar to transfer money to prop up Hamas – with the hope of dividing the Palestinian nation and movement so an independent state was impossible. Remember too how the West armed and backed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, playing a crucial role in creating the global Islamist fundamentalist movement. You would think the Western media might take an interest given the precedents. It is true that there is a shift taking place. Israeli spokespeople are suddenly being taken apart on mainstream television. Sky News is demanding the Prime Minister answer if genocide is taking place. But the media narrative still has not clearly shifted to reality – that is, a crime of historic proportions is being facilitated by Western governments, which means questions should be focused on 'how can this crime be stopped, and perpetrators held to justice' rather than 'is Israel doing something very bad here?' The latter is an improvement on where the narrative was stuck for so long – which was essentially 'Israel is waging a war of self-defence', with a side debate about whether the 'response' was 'proportionate'. What is clear is that an understanding is creeping into the political and media elites that a reckoning is coming, where those who facilitated this abomination will be forced to answer for what they did and what they didn't do. Time is running out.

Conference to recognise Palestinian state to weaken scope of its ambition, diplomats say
Conference to recognise Palestinian state to weaken scope of its ambition, diplomats say

The Guardian

time3 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Conference to recognise Palestinian state to weaken scope of its ambition, diplomats say

A planned conference in Saudi Arabia this month that supporters of Palestine had hoped would push western governments to recognise a Palestinian state has weakened its ambition and will instead hope to agree on steps towards recognition, diplomats have said. The change to the aims of the conference, due to be held between 17 and 20 June, marks a retreat from an earlier vision that it would mark a joint declaration of recognition of Palestine as a state by a large group of countries, including permanent UN security council members France and the UK. Emmanuel Macron, the French president and a co-sponsor of the event, has declared recognition of Palestine as 'a moral duty and political requirement', but French officials briefing their Israeli counterparts this week reassured them the conference will not be the moment for recognition. That is now seen as a prize that will emerge from other measures, including a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the release of Israeli hostages, reform of the Palestinian Authority, economic reconstruction and a definitive end to Hamas's rule in Gaza. France and Saudi Arabia have set up eight working parties to prepare the necessary ingredients for a two-state solution, and Macron is hosting a conference of civil society under the banner of the Paris Peace Forum immediately before the three-day conference. The UK is overseeing the humanitarian working party and other working groups cover reconstruction, economic viability of a Palestinian state, promoting respect for international law, narratives for peace and 'peace day', an imagining of the benefits to both sides from a peaceful settlement. Israel and the US have attended run-up meetings to the conference but have not spoken, prompting speculation they may boycott the event. Israel has fought hard to prevent stateless Palestinians achieving self-determination. Polls show only a fifth of the Israel electorate favour a two-state solution and 56% of Jewish Israelis supported the 'transfer of Arab citizens of Israel to other countries'. Israel has also approved plans to build a further 22 settlements in the West Bank – the biggest expansion in decades. Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, said it was 'a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state'. Macron's initiative has been described as 'disastrous' by the Israel's ambassador to France, Joshua Zarka. Recognition of a Palestinian state was previously seen as an outcome of a failed 1990s-era two-state plan. However, governments in Europe increasingly doubt Israel has any intention to ease its control over Palestinians and see recognition as a possible lever to force a change of thinking among Israeli officials. Ireland, Spain and Norway recognised a Palestinian state last year. Macron has insisted he would only recognise a Palestinian state without Hamas – the same stance as the UK. In an open letter to Macron, The Elders, a group of former senior UN diplomats, say recognition is 'an essential transformative step towards peace' that should be taken as a matter of principle, divorced from negotiations over the ultimate form of Palestinian statehood and how and when Hamas should be disarmed. Anne-Claire Legendre, the president's adviser on the Middle East, has said the conference 'must mark a transformative milestone for the effective implementation of the two-state solution. We must move from words to deeds, and we must move from the end of the war in Gaza to the end of the conflict.' She met Israeli officials this week to discuss the conference and Israel's often cloudy long-term vision for the region. She also met the Palestinian prime minister, Mohammad Mustafa. Israeli newspapers reported the travelling French officials as saying: 'The recognition of a Palestinian state remains on the table, but not as a product of the conference. This will remain a bilateral subject between states.' The British foreign secretary, David Lammy, who is expected to attend the conference, is under massive backbench pressure to do more to punish Israel and is, at minimum, being asked flesh out the conditions for the UK recognition of a Palestinian state. Hamish Falconer, the Middle East minister, told MPs this week the UK thinking was evolving. 'One reason that the traditional position of the UK government has been that the recognition of a Palestinian state should come at the end, or during, a two-state solution process was the hope that we would move towards a two-state solution,' he said. 'Many minds have been changed because of the rhetoric of the Israeli government – the clear statements by so many that they are no longer committed to a two-state solution.' But the British are looking for firm undertakings at the conference on the future government of Palestine, including the exclusion of Hamas from any future governance of Gaza, which is something Hamas itself has appeared to accept in the various plans drawn up by Arab states. A growing number of Conservative MPs have broken with their frontbench on the issue and now back recognition, including the former attorney general Sir Jeremy Wright. France hopes that a group of western states recognising a Palestinian state could be counter-balanced by Muslim states normalising relations with Israel. However, Saudi recognition of Israel seems impossible. The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, the other co-host, has asserted repeatedly that Israel is committing a genocide, a view that is shared widely by Saudi public opinion.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store