"History has proven that the PLO and its sectors suffered great damage when walking the way of harming Zionist interests in other countries around the world"

Ahmed Yassin’s statement reflects a strategic evaluation of the Palestinian resistance movement’s methods, specifically concerning attacks on Zionist, i.e., Israeli or Jewish, interests beyond the immediate region of conflict. The text draws from historical experience, recounting how the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its various factions faced severe repercussions after conducting operations targeting Israelis or Jewish institutions in countries outside of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Yassin makes a pragmatic observation: actions against Israeli or Jewish targets abroad did not serve the Palestinian cause effectively, instead, they brought significant harm to the organizers. The “damage” alluded to encompasses a wide range of consequences. Following attacks such as the ones at the Munich Olympics or airline hijackings, Palestinian groups were met with intensified international condemnation, diplomatic isolation, and, frequently, retaliatory military or intelligence operations, often carried out covertly by Israel’s Mossad, which conducted assassinations and sabotage globally.

The reference to “the way of harming Zionist interests in other countries” points to a strategy adopted during periods when elements of the Palestinian movement believed that internationalizing their struggle and striking Israeli-linked targets worldwide would force the world’s attention onto their demands. However, such actions also hardened opposition among foreign governments, who viewed these acts as terrorism. Rather than gaining widespread sympathy, the PLO’s reputation was tarnished, and governments that might have otherwise considered supporting Palestinian aspirations leaned towards Israel, primarily in the interest of their own security and international order.

Yassin’s analysis implies a call for reassessment of tactics within the Palestinian resistance, favoring localized struggle over international operations that provoke global backlash. Through this reflection, he underscores the costs of past strategies and subtly advocates for approaches that can win broader sympathy and avoid further harm to the Palestinian leadership and cause.