Egyptian media figure Khaled Al-Berry wrote that it was a mistake on the part of the moderate Arab countries to tolerate the extremism of Hamas.
By Rachel Avraham
According to a recent report published by MEMRI, “In his February 17, 2025 column in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, titled “The Palestinian Cause – Recovery or Collapse?”, Egyptian media figure Khaled Al-Berry wrote that it was a mistake on the part of the moderate Arab countries to tolerate the extremism of Hamas, a movement that serves the interests of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood and undermines the pursuit of peace, using Palestine merely as a tool to expand its influence in the region. Al-Berry called on the moderate countries to formulate a plan for sidelining Hamas, promoting a discourse of peace and strengthening cooperation through joint economic and security projects with Israel.”
Al Berry wrote, “We must follow the growing political and cultural changes in the U.S. and in other strong and significant countries… [Soccer] teams do a so-called ‘post-mortem’ [of their losses], or an analysis after the fact, to discover the flaws. If we apply this to the Palestinian-Israeli issue we will discover that the main flaw was our tolerance of an element [i.e., Hamas] that used offensive rhetoric, adopted a negative conduct and received its orders from Iran, the resistance axis and the hostile Muslim Brotherhood organization.”
According to him, “It started a civil war that weakened the Palestinians, tarnished the image of their cause and drove Fatah out of [the Gaza Strip]. Despite this, we did not neutralize this element and did not sever our ties with it, but trusted it to allow us to move ahead with the issue of peace, although we knew that its basic goal, since its inception, was to torpedo any chance of peace. Worse, figures in the academy and the media adopted its claims, so much so that [these claims] took over public opinion.”
“Political action has its own rules,” Al Berry wrote. “You can always refuse a proposal, but at the same time you must work with what you have and be responsible. Resorting to terror only increases the extremism of the other side. Israel once supported Rabin, Peres and Ehud Barak, but today this camp within [Israel] has disappeared, while the voice of the opposing camp has grown stronger, a camp that says simply: ‘Do you want a state controlled by Hamas as your neighbor? Read [this movement’s] charter. Look what it has done to its [Palestinian] rivals.’”
According to him, “The second flaw was failing to develop the idea of peace into plans that would permanently bind the interests of several sides. Egypt and Israel share economic and security interests that cannot all be listed here. And if we add to this the peace plans with the Gulf countries, the list will grow longer.”
“The map shows us the moves of the regional forces,” he added. “Turkey is present in Libya and is trying to inherit Iran’s role as an influential [element] in Syria. Our southern borders are not stable, and the Nahda dam [Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam] constitutes a serious threat. Iranian militias [i.e., the Houthis] are targeting our economic interests at the mouth of the Red Sea…””
“But [even] the worst crises also have advantages,” he noted. “The first [advantage of the present crisis] is that the public has witnessed with its own eyes the goal of certain well-known groups [in the resistance axis]. They said in the past that Palestine is just a toothpick that helps them to achieve their main goal, and now they have proved this in practice…”
According to him, “Another advantage is that] the public saw that the moderate countries are the ones that safeguard the national interests, not the slogan-[spouting] countries and their allies. And the third advantage is that we have all realized how much this conflict – in the present circumstances and given Hamas’ perception of it – can harm us.”
“These advantages create the right climate to present a different proposal for the future that will ensure a better future for all sides,” Al Berry concluded. “[This proposal] rests on three principles:
- Media that strengthens the discourse of peace, [stresses] its importance for all and helps the public to understand the complexity of this conflict;
- Removing ‘Hamas’ from the picture;
- Tying peace to economic and strategic interests.”
