Hamas and Fatah

Origins and Historical Context

Hamas and Fatah are the two most important Palestinian political movements today, but they emerged in very different historical moments and from different social bases. Fatah began in the late 1950s and 1960s as a secular nationalist movement founded largely by Palestinian exiles. Its leaders, including Yasser Arafat, wanted to build an independent Palestinian movement that was not controlled by Arab governments. Fatah became the dominant faction within the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, and for decades it was the main address for Palestinian national politics.

Hamas arose much later, during the First Intifada in 1987. It grew out of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which had previously focused on religious and social activities more than on direct armed struggle. The uprising, combined with frustration at both the Israeli occupation and the perceived limits and corruption of existing Palestinian leadership, created a space for a new Islamist movement. Hamas presented itself as both a resistance organization and a provider of social services in Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

These different birth moments matter. Fatah’s roots lie in the era of pan-Arabism and secular nationalism, while Hamas belongs to the wave of Islamist movements that grew across the Middle East in the late twentieth century. The two movements therefore carry different political cultures, visions, and ways of organizing.

Ideological Differences

At the level of ideas, Fatah and Hamas differ in how they frame Palestinian identity, the nature of the struggle, and the desired political system. Fatah is a broadly secular nationalist movement. It defines the Palestinian cause primarily in terms of national liberation, self-determination, and statehood. While many Fatah members may be personally religious, the movement itself does not call for an Islamic state. Instead, it has often spoken of a democratic or at least pluralistic state, with Islam as an important cultural reference but not the sole basis of political authority.

Hamas defines itself as an Islamic movement of resistance. In its early founding charter, Islam was central to its worldview, and it described the land of Palestine as an Islamic waqf, a kind of religious trust. Over time, especially in new political documents, Hamas has at times softened or rephrased some of its language, but it still presents its struggle as both national and religious. It sees Islamic law and values as important for public life and presents itself as part of a wider Islamic political current in the region.

These differences shape how each movement relates to concepts such as democracy, pluralism, and social issues. Fatah has tended to be more open to different ideological currents and has often cooperated with leftist, liberal, and independent Palestinian groups. Hamas accepts pluralism to some extent, especially after entering electoral politics, but retains an Islamic frame that shapes its stance on issues like education, gender roles, and public morality. For beginners, it is enough to recognize that one movement is primarily secular nationalist, while the other is explicitly Islamist, and that this distinction influences much of their rivalry.

Approaches to Israel and Armed Struggle

Both Hamas and Fatah have engaged in armed struggle, but they have done so with different strategies and have changed their positions over time.

Fatah initially supported armed struggle against Israel as the core method of liberation. In the 1960s and 1970s it carried out attacks and guerrilla operations. Over the decades, and especially from the late 1980s onward, Fatah moved toward diplomacy and political negotiation. By the time of the Oslo Accords, Fatah had formally recognized Israel and accepted the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, rather than in all of historic Palestine. Fatah still speaks of the right to resist occupation, but in practice its leadership has relied more on negotiations and international diplomacy than on large-scale armed operations.

Hamas, by contrast, began as a movement that rejected recognition of Israel and strongly opposed the Oslo process. It adopted armed resistance as a central method and carried out many attacks, including suicide bombings during the 1990s and the Second Intifada. Over time, some Hamas leaders have used language that suggests acceptance of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as a temporary or long-term arrangement, but without giving formal recognition to Israel in the same way Fatah did. Hamas has maintained an armed wing and continues to present armed struggle as legitimate as long as occupation continues.

The two movements therefore diverge on questions like recognition of Israel, the use of suicide bombings, and the balance between negotiations and violence. Fatah is closely associated with the strategy of a negotiated two-state outcome. Hamas is associated with continued military resistance, although both movements have at times used a mix of force and political talks.

Internal Structures and Leadership Styles

Fatah and Hamas are both large, complex organizations, but they are structured differently and have developed different leadership styles.

Fatah functions as a broad political movement with many currents inside it. It has official bodies such as the Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council, but local leaders, security chiefs, and long-time activists often hold significant informal power. Historically, Fatah’s leadership was based in exile and then moved into the West Bank and Gaza after the Oslo process. Over time it became closely tied to the institutions of the Palestinian Authority, which gave it access to state-like resources but also increased perceptions of bureaucracy and corruption.

Hamas combines a political organization, a social network, and a military wing. It has an internal consultative body known as the Shura Council and a political bureau that represents it externally. Its leaders are split between those based in Gaza, those in exile, and figures who operate more secretly. Hamas places high importance on internal discipline and ideological cohesion, in part because of its underground origins under occupation. Its military wing, sometimes called the Izz al Din al Qassam Brigades, has its own command structure, which interacts with but is not entirely identical to the political leadership.

Fatah’s more diffuse, factional structure can make it flexible but also prone to internal disputes and rivalry between elites. Hamas’s more centralized and ideological structure can give it coherence but also make policy shifts more difficult to carry through, especially when different parts of the leadership, in Gaza and abroad, face different pressures.

Social Bases and Support

Hamas and Fatah both draw support from across Palestinian society, but patterns of backing often differ by geography, class, and religious outlook.

Fatah’s historical strength lies in its role as the founder of the modern Palestinian national movement and its control over the PA institutions in the West Bank. Many public sector employees, security forces, and older generations in the West Bank have long-standing ties to Fatah networks. Families with histories in the PLO abroad, and some urban elites, often have roots in or connections to Fatah. The movement’s secular nature can appeal to Palestinians who want religion to remain more private or who fear that an Islamic system might marginalize them.

Hamas built much of its strength in Gaza, where poverty, overcrowding, and weak state structures gave religious charities and social networks a big role. Its early link to the Muslim Brotherhood, which had extensive mosque-based networks, helped it provide social services such as clinics, schools, and aid to poor families. This allowed Hamas to present itself not just as a resistance movement but as a provider of order and welfare in places where people felt neglected by the PA. In the West Bank, Hamas has built support particularly among more religious communities and among some students and professionals who see it as more honest or resistant than Fatah.

Support for both movements shifts over time and depends heavily on events. Military escalations, negotiations, economic crises, and internal scandals can quickly alter public attitudes. Many Palestinians are critical of both movements and do not feel strongly attached to either one, but in practice Hamas and Fatah remain the main organized forces capable of controlling territory and institutions.

The 2006 Elections and the Split

The tension between Hamas and Fatah moved from rivalry to open political struggle in the mid 2000s. After the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in the 1990s, Fatah dominated its institutions and Hamas stayed outside the formal political system. Over time, however, pressure grew to include Hamas in elections and to bring its popular support into the official political arena.

In 2006, legislative elections were held for the Palestinian Authority. Hamas took part through a list it called “Change and Reform” and campaigned on resistance, anti corruption, and social justice. To the surprise of many observers, Hamas won a majority of seats, while Fatah suffered significant losses. The result created a political crisis. Fatah leaders were reluctant to hand over real power in the PA, and Israel, the United States, and the European Union refused to work with a Hamas led government unless it met conditions such as recognizing Israel and renouncing violence.

International sanctions and internal confrontations followed. Attempts to form a unity government that included both Fatah and Hamas repeatedly broke down. Security forces loyal to each movement clashed in both Gaza and the West Bank. Instead of leading to a unified, democratic Palestinian political system, the elections exposed the depth of rivalry and the impact of external pressures on Palestinian politics.

The 2007 Gaza Takeover and Territorial Division

In 2007, the conflict between Hamas and Fatah escalated into armed struggle in Gaza. Fighting between security units loyal to Fatah and armed fighters from Hamas intensified, fueled by mistrust, competing chains of command, and external backing for different sides. Within a short period, Hamas took control of key security compounds, government offices, and crossings in Gaza.

As a result, Gaza came under Hamas de facto rule, while Fatah and the PA retained control of the Palestinian institutions in the West Bank. President Mahmoud Abbas, from Fatah, dismissed the Hamas led government and appointed a new one based in Ramallah. Hamas rejected this move, insisting that the 2006 electoral mandate still applied. From that point onward, Palestinian governance has been split into two separate administrations, one in Gaza and one in the West Bank, each claiming legitimacy.

This territorial division is central to understanding how Hamas and Fatah operate today. Hamas runs ministries, police, and courts in Gaza, while Fatah aligned authorities manage equivalent institutions in the West Bank. The split has affected everything from tax collection, salaries, and aid distribution to security coordination and foreign relations. For many Palestinians, everyday life is shaped not only by Israeli policies but also by which Palestinian authority rule they live under.

Governance, Corruption, and Legitimacy

Control of territory and institutions brought new challenges for both movements. Fatah, through the PA, has long faced criticism for corruption, favoritism in public sector jobs, and heavy security cooperation with Israel. Many Palestinians, especially younger ones, see the PA under Fatah as an authority that delivers limited political gains but imposes strict internal control. Delays and cancellations of elections have deepened questions about its democratic legitimacy.

Hamas came to power in Gaza presenting itself as a cleaner, more pious alternative. In its early years of rule, some residents of Gaza praised improvements in public order and service provision compared to the chaos that came before. Over time, however, Hamas has also faced accusations of corruption, heavy handed security practices, and suppression of dissent. The difficult conditions in Gaza, including blockade and repeated wars, have made effective governance harder, but critics also point to internal patronage networks and lack of accountability.

Both movements use institutions, security forces, and media outlets to maintain their authority. Activists who criticize one side may find some space in areas governed by the other, but they also risk being caught in the rivalry. The struggle between Hamas and Fatah is therefore not only ideological but also about control over budgets, borders, and police forces, which affects how Palestinians experience power on a daily basis.

Attempts at Reconciliation

Since the internal split, Hamas and Fatah have engaged in many rounds of talks aimed at reconciliation. These talks have often been hosted by regional powers such as Egypt or Qatar. Agreements have been announced that promise unity governments, shared security arrangements, and new elections. Yet most of these deals have not been fully implemented.

Several issues repeatedly block progress. One is control over the security forces in Gaza and the West Bank. Another is how to integrate public employees hired by each side into a single payroll and administrative system. A third is the political program of any joint government, especially regarding recognition of Israel, armed resistance, and negotiations. External actors, including Israel and foreign donors, also influence the space for compromise by setting conditions and applying pressure.

The repeated pattern of agreement, partial implementation, and renewed breakdown has left many Palestinians skeptical about reconciliation. At the same time, public opinion polls often show strong support for ending the division. The rivalry between Hamas and Fatah is therefore not only a matter of leadership choices but also a structural problem that has become embedded in different institutions, economies, and international relationships in Gaza and the West Bank.

Impact on the Palestinian National Project

The Hamas Fatah split has had major consequences for the broader Palestinian national project. On the one hand, it weakens Palestinian representation abroad, because there is no single leadership that clearly speaks for all Palestinians. This affects diplomatic efforts, negotiations, and international advocacy, since foreign governments must decide which Palestinian actors to engage and under what conditions.

On the other hand, the division complicates internal decision making. Policies about resistance, peace talks, economic development, and relations with neighboring countries differ between Gaza and the West Bank. At times, actions taken by one authority have undermined the strategies of the other. For example, a ceasefire agreement negotiated by Hamas can conflict with a diplomatic initiative led by Fatah, or vice versa.

The rivalry has also shaped how Palestinians debate their future options, such as different models for a political solution. Discussions about two state, one state, or confederal arrangements are carried out in an environment where there is no unified Palestinian authority to implement any of these visions. For a beginner, it is important simply to see that the internal split between Hamas and Fatah is now a central part of the political landscape, not a side issue.

Everyday Perceptions and Future Uncertainties

At the level of everyday perceptions, many Palestinians see Hamas and Fatah through the lens of their immediate experiences. People in Gaza may judge Hamas by its ability to provide security, services, and some sense of dignity under blockade and repeated conflict. People in the West Bank may judge Fatah by the quality of PA services, economic opportunities, and how the leadership handles relations with Israel and foreign donors. Some view one movement as a lesser evil, others see both as part of the problem, while some remain strongly loyal to one side.

For their part, Hamas and Fatah both try to claim the mantle of representing the Palestinian people and resisting occupation, but they do so with different narratives and different alliances. External actors in the region and worldwide often pick sides or at least work more closely with one than the other, which deepens the division.

The future of the relationship between Hamas and Fatah remains uncertain. Possible paths include deeper separation, gradual reconciliation, or the emergence of new forces that challenge both. Any significant change in leadership, regional politics, or the conditions in Gaza and the West Bank could alter the balance. What is clear is that understanding present day Gaza and West Bank politics requires close attention to how these two movements differ, how they interact, and how their rivalry shapes the lives and choices of ordinary Palestinians.