Free Palestine – Just Not Right Now

In the past week, Hamas executed dozens of Palestinians in Gaza. International media reported the events in detail, yet in Dutch activist and academic circles, the silence was deafening. The movement that for months claimed to speak for the oppressed now seems to fall silent when the oppressor comes from within.

The facts

In the second week of October, international and Dutch outlets published reports on what unfolded in Gaza after the ceasefire with Israel. Not about rockets or bombings, but about Hamas returning to the streets to restore its authority.

According to Haaretz and The Times of Israel, dozens of Palestinians were arrested and executed for alleged collaboration with Israel. Videos of public executions were verified by several newsrooms. The New York Times also confirmed the authenticity of footage showing eight men kneeling before being shot dead.

Across all coverage, the pattern was the same: Hamas restores order through violence. The group has turned its weapons inward – on its own civilians and rival clans.

How the media saw Gaza: from Jerusalem to New York

International coverage

Haaretz | Israeli newspaper, progressive and critical
“Hamas shoots opponents in Gaza unimpeded.”
A factual tone based on sources in Gaza. Hamas appears as a regime using fear to restore authority.

The Times of Israel | Israeli newspaper, direct and security-focused
“Hamas said to kill over 30 Gazans, publicly execute 7.”
Emphasised numbers and political reactions. The Palestinian Authority called the executions “heinous crimes”; Trump dismissed them as “restoring order.”

The Guardian | British newspaper, neutral and diplomatic
“Hamas deploys armed fighters and police across parts of Gaza.”
Neutral reporting with cautious language. Order and stability were central, not freedom or accountability.

The New York Times | American newspaper of record
“With Truce in Place, Hamas Pursues Bloody Crackdown on Rivals in Gaza.”
Independently verified video footage and interviewed witnesses. Hamas was portrayed as an authoritarian power trying to regain legitimacy, with Trump’s tacit approval.

Dutch coverage

De Telegraaf | Conservative populist daily
“The role of Hamas is played out.”
A political perspective: Hamas as the loser, Trump as the savior.

NRC Handelsblad | Dutch analytical daily
“Hamas executes rivals in Gaza in attempt to tighten its grip.”
Businesslike, well-sourced reporting focusing on fear and the maintenance of power.

De Volkskrant | Progressive daily
“Hamas re-emerges in Gaza to restore order, with Trump’s blessing.”
An analysis of power and diplomacy, less attention to civilians.

Trouw | Dutch quality daily focusing on ethics and social debate
“Hamas tries to regain its position in Gaza through the ceasefire.”
A reflective tone. Order is acknowledged, not glorified.

Algemeen Dagblad | Dutch mainstream daily
“Hamas seeks to restore order in Gaza through public executions: ‘Terrifying.’”
Visually written and emotional, focused on fear and chaos.

What this reveals

The stylistic differences are significant, but the core message is the same: Hamas uses violence to retain power. Israeli and American outlets emphasized repression and fear; British and Dutch media stressed order and political control. None presented Hamas as a liberation movement.

The justification

At the same time, some voices did not deny the violence – they justified it.

British academic Harry Pettit, affiliated with Radboud University, wrote on X (@harrygpettit) that the executed men “were collaborators who worked with the IOF to carry out a genocide against their own people.” He added, “They didn’t survive it—as they shouldn’t.”

A day later, he posted an image of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar with the caption: “He will be glorified for generations as a hero who taught us to stand tall against imperial power.” He also wrote: “Being associated with Hamas should be a badge of honor.”

The account @OuweDibbes compared the executions to the Dutch resistance in 1945: “Why are the ZIONAZIS so outraged when the Palestinian resistance (Hamas) does the same?”

The man behind the account, Huso A., is known for frequently changing identity – one month presenting himself as Jewish, the next as an adopted Palestinian orphan or a converted Muslim. He once claimed his aunt had died in an earthquake in Morocco, then that his entire family had been killed in Gaza. In reality, he is simply a man from Friesland with a vivid imagination.

His stories change with the headlines but share one constant: they generate attention, sympathy, and sometimes donations. His current defense of Hamas fits that pattern, and despite his reputation, his posts are regularly shared.

Even when others pointed out that his stories were demonstrably false, supporters saw no problem. “It’s about the arguments he makes,” one replied. Truth had become secondary to affirmation. As long as someone said what fit the preferred narrative, it no longer mattered whether they lied or manipulated.

The left-wing account @Feestbrood wrote: “Because the resistance is removing collaborators and traitors. No shame in that.” Another, @werkschuwtuig2, accused RTL News of “creating consent for genocide” by reporting on the executions.

For the record: behind these accounts are the same activists who previously tried to disrupt the Dutch Liberation Day commemoration on Dam Square.

These reactions were not isolated. They circulated among activist networks of students and lecturers who had previously campaigned under #FreePalestine. The same circles that labelled Israeli bombings as war crimes now defended Hamas’ public executions of Palestinians.

The logic was reversed but consistent: if Israel is the enemy, Hamas must be the resistance – no matter what it does. Moral conviction turns into loyalty.

The silence of solidarity

That silence was not neutral. It was filled with justification, distortion, and ideological inversion.

While Haaretz and The New York Times verified the executions, activists shared tributes to Hamas.

Pettit posted a eulogy for Sinwar: “Today is the anniversary of Yahya Sinwar’s martyrdom. Despite billions spent on Zionist propaganda to dehumanize and vilify him, he will be glorified for generations as a hero who taught us all to stand tall against imperial power and violence.”

The Palestinians executed in Gaza, he wrote, “were collaborators who worked with the IOF to carry out a genocide against their own people.”

The language of liberation has become the language of coercion. Those who claim to fight oppression now use the same reasoning to justify it elsewhere.

The irony is sharp: a movement that claims to speak for freedom falls silent when that freedom is suppressed from within. Those who once shouted “Free Palestine” now stay quiet when Palestinians are shot by Hamas – or they label the victims “Israeli collaborators.”

Apparently, everything is permissible.

That silence is not ignorance – it is a choice.
It doesn’t say we didn’t know, but we didn’t want to know.

Where empathy ends

The coverage of Gaza reveals how difficult moral clarity has become in a conflict where everyone must choose a side. Facts are no longer judged by accuracy but by usefulness.

Those who claim to stand for Palestinians should also recognize those suffering under Hamas. That is not betrayal – it is a moral prerequisite.

The silence of the past week exposes something more painful than ignorance: selective empathy. The solidarity that once sounded so loud now depends on who commits the crime.

When Israel drops bombs, resistance is moral.
When Hamas executes civilians, it becomes “complex.”

Outrage has turned into identity: not to help victims, but to prove you are on the right side of history. It’s no longer about people, but about symbols that confirm what one already believes.

In that world, hierarchies of suffering emerge. Some deaths are more tolerable than others, some crimes easier to excuse when committed by the “right” hands. Moral conviction becomes not a compass, but a mirror.

As long as solidarity revolves around positions instead of people, it remains hollow.
Freedom loses meaning when it only applies to those who fit your story.

(All screenshots and social media posts referenced in this article are archived and available upon request.)