Palestinians Debate Armed Tactics

it's worth repeating. So here's an update on what's been happening in Gaza specifically. Despite the ceasefire agreement, reports indicate ongoing demolition of homes in Gaza City and restricted entry of food, medical, and humanitarian aid. Again, since the ceasefire started, more than six hundred Palestinians have been killed by Israeli

fi with one hundreds more injured. For some reason, these don't count as ceasefire violations, and according to the Gaza Government Media Office, there's been over sixteen hundred violations by Israeli forces, including air attacks, shelling, and direct shooting of the past one hundred and thirty some days of the ceasefire, Analosa shows attacks on one hundred and eleven of them, at least In a previous episode, I also talked about what the yellow line was, which was this kind of

unilaterally imposed military boundary inside Gaza to make sure that Palestinians are sequestered into smaller spaces, and Israeli forces have continued to target individuals and structures across this yellow line, claiming that these actions are necessary to stop militants and now JA zero reports, however, that Israeli backed gangs armed gangs are operating back and forth across the yellow line,

so they're allowed now. Rapach Crossing, which is at the southern tip of Gaza, has officially opened, but is operating under intense Israeli security, with some monitoring by the Palestinian authority and EU officials, but reports indicate that only about fifty to one hundred and fifty people are allowed to cross daily, which is far below the demand for the estimated twenty thousand plus sick or wounded Palestinians needing evacuation.

And since it's opened its faced closures, there's been a lot of confusion about policy, with many reporting harsh treatment, invasive searches, and restrictions on personal belongings for those passing through, and that crossing is not functioning for commercial or humanitarian aid,

which must go through other Israeli controlled crossings. At the Munich Security Conference that was held February thirteenth, the top US appointed diplomat overseeing the ceasefire, Bulgarian diplomat Nicolaim Ladanov said, quote continued violations of the agreement pose major obstacles to the Pastinian committee expected to oversee post war governance and reconstruction end quote, and he was specifically talking about Hamas basically violating the agreement by not laying down its weapons,

not disarming and the Passidnian Foreign Minister Varsen Shaheen, speaking at the same panel, focused on this idea that Gaza must not be severed from the West Bank and that the Palsadian authority, meaning the government in the West Bank that she represents, will need to take control of governance at some point in Gaza, so that Pastinians could maybe have a state in the future, something of course the Israeli government has rejected outright, which brings us to this

issue of disarming Hamas. Now, this has been a condition of the US and its representatives on the Board of Peace. Here's Trump on this a few days after the ceasefire was announced. I will it take Hamas to disarm and can you guarantee that is going to happen? Well, I'm going to disarm, and because they said they were going to disarm, and if they don't disarm, we will disarm them. How you do that, I don't have to explain that to you. But if they don't disarm, we will disarm them.

They know I'm not playing games, okay. On February fifteenth, he announced on social media his Truth Social that he had gotten five billion dollars pledged by members of his quote unquote Board of Peace. As one article noted, reconstruction of Gaza is expected to cost seven hundred billion dollars according to the United Nations, World Bank, and European Union estimates,

especially after more than two years of war. Trump has also claimed that countries had committed a bunch of troops to the International Security Force that's supposed to go into Gaza,

secure Gaza and disarm Hamas. He didn't name which of these countries had committed troops, but Indonesia did confirm that it will send eight thousand troops, and in that same truth social post, Trump again reiterated that quote very importantly, Hamass must uphold its commitment to full and immediate demilitarization

end quote. So. Back in December, in an interview with Israel's Channel twelve, as reported by drop site News, Yous Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz, said that the International Security Force was intended to disarm Hamas one way or the other. Specifically, he said, quote by all means necessary, and that quote obviously, it'll be a conversation with each country. Those rules of engagement are ongoing. I'll tell you this. President Trump has repeatedly said Hamas will disarm one way

or another, the easy way or the hard way. End quote. Now. Hamas, for its art, claims it never agreed to disarm. In an interview with drop site News in December twenty twenty five, senior HAMAS leader Hadad Michald said that while Hamas is open to quote freezing or storing its defensive weapons, it wouldn't disarm unless it was in the quote context of establishing a Palestinian army or security force capable of defending

itself from Israeli aggression. Hamas has claimed that it only has a mandate to negotiate a cease fire at exchange of captives, and that every other issue needs to be handled through some sort of consensus process involving the other

Palestinian political factions. And in that same interview, Michiald rejected the idea of an international security force disarming them, saying that quote we accept them on the borders as separation forces between the Palestinian side and the Israeli side, not as forces deployed inside Gaza as was intended for them, and as Nitayaja wants for them to clash with Palestinians

and disarm them end quote. So, speaking at an Al Jazera forum on February eighth, the same person, Haded michald reiterated this argument, saying that the calls for Hamas's disarmament is not an international demand but and Israeli dictate being pushed onto Washington. He also said that cause to disarm Palstinians while the occupation continues would quote leave Gaza defenseless

against Israel's overwhelming military power and exterminationist agenda. As job site News reported on their social media, quote mitchad acknowledged the need for pragmatic post war framework to enable reconstruction and prevent a return to fighting, but explained that it could not be built on total disarmament. So with that as an introduction, I wanted to take this episode to talk about what Palestinians think of disarmament and broadly and

more generally arm tactics. And when I say Palestinians, I hope it's clear I don't just mean Hemas. I know that comes as a shock to some, but Palstinians aren't monolithic. And there has been a great deal of debate since the Octu over seventh attacks by HEMS on the role of arm tactics armed groups, especially in the absence of

national institutions or functioning national liberation movements. In December of last year, twenty twenty five, the New Arab hosted a very interesting debate between different Pastinian representatives of Hamas Fateh, the party of the Palsidian Authority, and a human rights activist and writer. And they hosted this in Gaza, literally on the grounds of the bombed out of Shippa Hospital, and they've debated some key questions, for example, who has

the right to decide or in peace for Palestinians. How can Pastinians understand October seventh, does Hamas need to disarm? Who should govern Gaza? And you know what, this may come as a shock to both the American left and the American right, but the Pasdian speakers at this interview did not all agree with each other. So I'm going to give a brief roundown of what this panel discussed.

The main Hamas spokesperson hasn't cast him basically argued that decisions on war and peace should be made through national consensus within a unified Pastinian institution, not unilaterally by any faction. But and in the absence of functioning institutions, then Hamas is a part of the Palstinian body politic has a right to engage in violence and defend Palestinians. He also argued that it wasn't Hamas's fault that there wasn't national

consensus or functioning national institutions. His narrative was that Hamas consistently sought unity first by entering into elections in two thousand and six and supporting election attempts that President Mahmoud Abbas of the party and the Paladinian authority ended up canceling. He also reiterated that Hamas doesn't mind handing over governance in Gaza to a technocratic body, which proves, from his perspective,

that they aren't trying to govern alone. And on the question of disarmament, he said Hamas would commit to cease fire, they would commit to maybe storing their weapons, but they wouldn't disarm entirely, and they maintained that armed tactics are illegitimate right. He also emphasized that Israel alone was responsible for the destruction of Gaza and that no one could have anticipated the level of brutality Israel would unleash now.

The Fattehespauk's person, Mond Hayek understandably disagreed with many of these points. He represents the opposing party, and from his perspective, the October seventh attacks were launched without national consensus and that Concessus could only operate through the Past Time Liberation Organization the PLO, which is the internationally recognized representative of

the Palestinian people. Hayak also made the reasonable argument that even if everyone agrees armed resistance is a right, that those engaging in that tactic should consider the regional and international context, as well as the impact of these kinds of tactics and the likelihood of their success, and in his view, because these things were not considered October seventh, led to very negative results for Palestinians and a lack

of meaningful international support. He also admonished Hamas leadership for making what he thinks is a political decision of not negotiation aiding a ceasefire earlier, accusing them of having been able to stop the war in the first six months and limit the bloodshed. And finally, he criticized Hamas for prolonging negotiations and refusing to put the PA in charge

of Gaza. And he landed on the argument that there could be no future for Hamas from his perspective, as part of a national liberation movement unless it accepted the PLO, it disarmed, it renounced violence, and understood that the PA, the Palsienian Authority, was the only legitimate authority that could control both territories the West Bank and Gaza, and the way to quote unify Palstinian geography is through the Palsenian Authority and doing that would be the only way to

get back to the state building project I'm just summarizing here to be clear, his words, not mine. Now. The final panelist, Mustaf Ebrahim is a writer and human rights activist in Gaza who took a critical position of both parties. He basically said that both Hamas and fate shared the blame for the division in the Pastinian body politic and the fact that there was a lack of mechanism for

collective Palstenian decision making and no functioning national institutions. He blamed both sides, and he accused both sides of not actually being serious about any of the dialogue sessions that were held between the two parties in the past in Cairo, Beirut,

and Beijing. But he agreed with the FATEH spokesperson that October seventh has not been allowed to be assessed properly and that Palestinians never got to decide if the consequences justified whatever October semith was trying to do, and he blamed Hamas for that, so, agreeing with the other panelists that the rights to resist as legitimate, he also acknowledged that disarmament was an internationally demanded condition, so he posed

the question how would Palestinians navigate this, and from his perspective, Hamas should be more flexible on the weapons and disarmament issue, especially given the degree of people's suffering and the need

for reconstruction in Gaza. I summarize all of this for you because this debate held in Gaza among people who had directly lived through the last two years of genocide, should demonstrate that there is no national consensus, and that it's not because Pastinians don't know how to resolve these issues, it's because they haven't been given the space to do so.

There has been a lot of discussion about how to unify these different parties, about reviving the Pastain Liberation Organization, making it more inclusive and democratic and therefore more legitimate as an actor, so that it could make decisions the Palstinian people would accept, and so that not one faction can do what at once can engage in tactics without

considering the consequences. But none of these attempts, and there have been plenty, like the Palstinian National Conference, have really been incorporated into discussions of post conflict processes or management by the international community. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised when the idea we're going with is the quote Board of Peace, basically functioning as a colonial oversight board and a club for authoritarian regimes. But I digress. I think it's also

important to make two points here. First, that polling of the Palestinian people by the Palstinian Center for Policy and Survey Research shows that most Palestinians are not supportive of either party, neither Fetah or Hamas. There is a degree of malaise and cynicism where both parties are seen as

a part of an unacceptable status quo. For example, when asked about whether they would support a Hamas candidate or a fute candidate if elections were held for the presidency, thirty four percent of Palstinians say they would vote for a Fute candidate, twenty four percent would say a Hamas candidate, nine percent would say they would keep president Mahmoud Abbass, and a whopping thirty two percent would say they wouldn't even vote, and this non voting percentage goes up to

forty seven percent if the elections are just between Mahamud Abbass and a Hamas candidate. And they also ask about direct support of political parties, so there's a more direct question in the latest poll from October twenty twenty five, Again it shows twenty four percent support FATE, hardly a majority, thy five five percent support MS, again hardly a majority, nine percent support third parties, and thirty two percent either

say they don't know or refuse to answer. So this is not a situation where either of these parties have a mandate, and it's clear that neither party is representing the Pasenian people right now, nor do their actions have majority support. Now, some might wonder is this debate emerging because of the sheer level of destruction in Gaza. We are talking over seventy thousand people killed in Gaza that

we can even confirm so far. Is it that, in this context, this context of severe consequences from Israel, what prompted this debate and self reflection? Well, the short answer is no. Postenians have always debated these issues, and in the absence of a functioning national liberation movement with all of its institutions, they haven't been able to hold any

particular party accountable for its actions. I could point to a lot in Pastenian history to demonstrate this, but I'll point out an essay by a Postaenian inte actual Asthmibshada that he wrote and released within a month of October seventh. This essay, titled Moral Matters and Hard Times, again demonstrates the Palestinians have never shied away from this discussion and indeed made criticisms of these political parties very quickly following

the attacks. Now, of course, Bashada lays the blame for civilian deaths on Israel, given that it targets Palestinian civilians as he argues out of racism and as he argues to try to turn the population against armed tactics and armed resistance, and he quotes Israeli leaders directly here. So he talks about President Herzog saying there are no innocence in Gaza, and Israeli Defense Minister you Off Gallant at

the time calling people in Gaza human animals. And he also points out that Israeli society at the time was overwhelmingly supportive of cutting off food, water, and medicine to Gaza. So, although Bashada rejects this kind of absolute evil framing of the attacks and says we need to understand the context of a seventeen year seage on Gaza settlement expansion incurasions on the al axamosk and prisoner mistreatment. He also plainly

argues that immoral acts committed during October seventh. So to him, documented instances of harm to civilians, theft, mistreatment, etc. Are not acts of resistance, and in fact, from his perspective, they harm legitimate resistance. And he argues again a month within the attacks, that the leadership of the quote unquote resistance have a duty to clarify what happened and condemn

those immoral acts. He says, quote having recognized a people's right to resist occupation, can it be concluded that we are not permitted to judge the morality of acts of resistance to occupation? My answer is that, on the contrary, it is not only permissible, but perhaps necessary. End quote.

So he argues that the right to resist does not exempt these movements from moral judgment, and distinguishing between legitimate military operations and immoral acts against civilians is essential to maintaining the justice of the Pastinian cause, even as we can acknowledge and emphasize the quote moral depravity of the Israeli response end quote. Now, whether you agree with him or not, whether you side with one of the panelists

I mentioned from the interview or the other. What I want people to take away from this episode is that all of this clearly shows Palestinians have been taking seriously the strategic and moral implications of all of these tactics arm tactics included, and that there isn't any one party that speaks for what Postinians want right now. The only way to get national consensus is to allow the Palestinians to create or revive the institutions necessary for that to

take place. Disempowering Palestinians ignoring their aspirations and ignoring the need for their input or blocking them from undergoing this essential process will only prolong a conflict and put along the suffering. That's it for me today. Thanks for listening. It Could Happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website Polsonmedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can now find sources for It Could Happen here listed directly in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening.