Othman Al-Khamis’ Controversial Remarks on Hamas: Justification or Strategic Retreat?
Kuwaiti Preacher Othman Al-Khamis Attempts to Clarify His Criticism of Hamas, Sparking Further Backlash
Watan-After his previous statements attacking the Hamas movement, which were widely welcomed in Zionist circles, Kuwaiti preacher Othman Al-Khamis came out to justify his position, confirming that what he said was merely a “slip of the tongue” and not an intentional attack on the resistance. However, instead of offering a direct apology, Al-Khamis appeared smiling, dismissing the controversy his remarks had sparked, which led many to question the sincerity of his retraction.
Justifications That Didn’t Convince Anyone
In his most recent appearance, Al-Khamis seemed surprised by his own statements, claiming that he did not intend to insult the resistance, but rather his comments were directed at Hamas’s political leadership, not its military wing, the Qassam Brigades. At the same time, he stressed that he did not undermine the “mujahideen” fighting the occupation, trying to calm public anger.
Hamas is One and Undivided
His recent statements did not go unnoticed, sparking a new wave of criticism. Many rejected his attempt to distinguish between Hamas’s political and military wings, asserting that the movement is a unified entity. The political leadership of Hamas directs its military wing, and attacking one is an attack on the entire resistance.
Wide Debate Among Supporters and Opponents
On the other hand, some believed that Al-Khamis’s remarks were not an attack on the movement itself, but rather on its political choices, viewing the criticism of political movements as legitimate. However, this opinion was not enough to halt the flood of criticism, especially as Al-Khamis’s comments came at a sensitive time when Gaza is under a siege and systematic starvation, and Israel is waging an aggressive campaign to tarnish the image of the resistance.
Attempts at Justification or Escaping Criticism?
Whether Al-Khamis was trying to calm public opinion or justify his position, his actions did not achieve the intended result and only increased the anger towards him. Were his comments really a “slip of the tongue,” or is he following the path of some figures who seek to present ambiguous stances to appease all sides?
