Speaker 1: Col Zone Media. Hello everyone, I'm welcome to it could
Speaker 1: happen here. My name is Dad Al Kern. I'm an
Speaker 1: associate professor of political science a senior non resident fellow
Speaker 1: at the Arab Center Washington, and I specialize in Palestinian
Speaker 1: and Arab politics. Although Gaza has sort of leaked off
Speaker 1: the headlines with everything going on domestically, there's still obviously
Speaker 1: a lot happening on the issue of Palestine. I feel
Speaker 1: like I've started the last few episodes like this, but
Speaker 1: it's worth repeating. So here's an update on what's been
Speaker 1: happening in Gaza specifically. Despite the ceasefire agreement, reports indicate
Speaker 1: ongoing demolition of homes in Gaza City and restricted entry
Speaker 1: of food, medical, and humanitarian aid. Again, since the ceasefire started,
Speaker 1: more than six hundred Palestinians have been killed by Israeli
Speaker 1: fi with one hundreds more injured. For some reason, these
Speaker 1: don't count as ceasefire violations, and according to the Gaza
Speaker 1: Government Media Office, there's been over sixteen hundred violations by
Speaker 1: Israeli forces, including air attacks, shelling, and direct shooting of
Speaker 1: the past one hundred and thirty some days of the ceasefire,
Speaker 1: Analosa shows attacks on one hundred and eleven of them,
Speaker 1: at least In a previous episode, I also talked about
Speaker 1: what the yellow line was, which was this kind of
Speaker 1: unilaterally imposed military boundary inside Gaza to make sure that
Speaker 1: Palestinians are sequestered into smaller spaces, and Israeli forces have
Speaker 1: continued to target individuals and structures across this yellow line,
Speaker 1: claiming that these actions are necessary to stop militants and
Speaker 1: now JA zero reports, however, that Israeli backed gangs armed
Speaker 1: gangs are operating back and forth across the yellow line,
Speaker 1: so they're allowed now. Rapach Crossing, which is at the
Speaker 1: southern tip of Gaza, has officially opened, but is operating
Speaker 1: under intense Israeli security, with some monitoring by the Palestinian
Speaker 1: authority and EU officials, but reports indicate that only about
Speaker 1: fifty to one hundred and fifty people are allowed to
Speaker 1: cross daily, which is far below the demand for the
Speaker 1: estimated twenty thousand plus sick or wounded Palestinians needing evacuation.
Speaker 1: And since it's opened its faced closures, there's been a
Speaker 1: lot of confusion about policy, with many reporting harsh treatment,
Speaker 1: invasive searches, and restrictions on personal belongings for those passing through,
Speaker 1: and that crossing is not functioning for commercial or humanitarian aid,
Speaker 1: which must go through other Israeli controlled crossings. At the
Speaker 1: Munich Security Conference that was held February thirteenth, the top
Speaker 1: US appointed diplomat overseeing the ceasefire, Bulgarian diplomat Nicolaim Ladanov said,
Speaker 1: quote continued violations of the agreement pose major obstacles to
Speaker 1: the Pastinian committee expected to oversee post war governance and
Speaker 1: reconstruction end quote, and he was specifically talking about Hamas
Speaker 1: basically violating the agreement by not laying down its weapons,
Speaker 1: not disarming and the Passidnian Foreign Minister Varsen Shaheen, speaking
Speaker 1: at the same panel, focused on this idea that Gaza
Speaker 1: must not be severed from the West Bank and that
Speaker 1: the Palsadian authority, meaning the government in the West Bank
Speaker 1: that she represents, will need to take control of governance
Speaker 1: at some point in Gaza, so that Pastinians could maybe
Speaker 1: have a state in the future, something of course the
Speaker 1: Israeli government has rejected outright, which brings us to this
Speaker 1: issue of disarming Hamas. Now, this has been a condition
Speaker 1: of the US and its representatives on the Board of Peace.
Speaker 1: Here's Trump on this a few days after the ceasefire
Speaker 1: was announced. I will it take Hamas to disarm and
Speaker 1: can you guarantee that is going to happen? Well, I'm
Speaker 1: going to disarm, and because they said they were going
Speaker 1: to disarm, and if they don't disarm, we will disarm them.
Speaker 1: How you do that, I don't have to explain that
Speaker 1: to you. But if they don't disarm, we will disarm them.
Speaker 1: They know I'm not playing games, okay. On February fifteenth,
Speaker 1: he announced on social media his Truth Social that he
Speaker 1: had gotten five billion dollars pledged by members of his
Speaker 1: quote unquote Board of Peace. As one article noted, reconstruction
Speaker 1: of Gaza is expected to cost seven hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: according to the United Nations, World Bank, and European Union estimates,
Speaker 1: especially after more than two years of war. Trump has
Speaker 1: also claimed that countries had committed a bunch of troops
Speaker 1: to the International Security Force that's supposed to go into Gaza,
Speaker 1: secure Gaza and disarm Hamas. He didn't name which of
Speaker 1: these countries had committed troops, but Indonesia did confirm that
Speaker 1: it will send eight thousand troops, and in that same
Speaker 1: truth social post, Trump again reiterated that quote very importantly,
Speaker 1: Hamass must uphold its commitment to full and immediate demilitarization
Speaker 1: end quote. So. Back in December, in an interview with
Speaker 1: Israel's Channel twelve, as reported by drop site News, Yous
Speaker 1: Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz, said that the International
Speaker 1: Security Force was intended to disarm Hamas one way or
Speaker 1: the other. Specifically, he said, quote by all means necessary,
Speaker 1: and that quote obviously, it'll be a conversation with each country.
Speaker 1: Those rules of engagement are ongoing. I'll tell you this.
Speaker 1: President Trump has repeatedly said Hamas will disarm one way
Speaker 1: or another, the easy way or the hard way. End quote. Now. Hamas,
Speaker 1: for its art, claims it never agreed to disarm. In
Speaker 1: an interview with drop site News in December twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: senior HAMAS leader Hadad Michald said that while Hamas is
Speaker 1: open to quote freezing or storing its defensive weapons, it
Speaker 1: wouldn't disarm unless it was in the quote context of
Speaker 1: establishing a Palestinian army or security force capable of defending
Speaker 1: itself from Israeli aggression. Hamas has claimed that it only
Speaker 1: has a mandate to negotiate a cease fire at exchange
Speaker 1: of captives, and that every other issue needs to be
Speaker 1: handled through some sort of consensus process involving the other
Speaker 1: Palestinian political factions. And in that same interview, Michiald rejected
Speaker 1: the idea of an international security force disarming them, saying
Speaker 1: that quote we accept them on the borders as separation
Speaker 1: forces between the Palestinian side and the Israeli side, not
Speaker 1: as forces deployed inside Gaza as was intended for them,
Speaker 1: and as Nitayaja wants for them to clash with Palestinians
Speaker 1: and disarm them end quote. So, speaking at an Al
Speaker 1: Jazera forum on February eighth, the same person, Haded michald
Speaker 1: reiterated this argument, saying that the calls for Hamas's disarmament
Speaker 1: is not an international demand but and Israeli dictate being
Speaker 1: pushed onto Washington. He also said that cause to disarm
Speaker 1: Palstinians while the occupation continues would quote leave Gaza defenseless
Speaker 1: against Israel's overwhelming military power and exterminationist agenda. As job
Speaker 1: site News reported on their social media, quote mitchad acknowledged
Speaker 1: the need for pragmatic post war framework to enable reconstruction
Speaker 1: and prevent a return to fighting, but explained that it
Speaker 1: could not be built on total disarmament. So with that
Speaker 1: as an introduction, I wanted to take this episode to
Speaker 1: talk about what Palestinians think of disarmament and broadly and
Speaker 1: more generally arm tactics. And when I say Palestinians, I
Speaker 1: hope it's clear I don't just mean Hemas. I know
Speaker 1: that comes as a shock to some, but Palstinians aren't monolithic.
Speaker 1: And there has been a great deal of debate since
Speaker 1: the Octu over seventh attacks by HEMS on the role
Speaker 1: of arm tactics armed groups, especially in the absence of
Speaker 1: national institutions or functioning national liberation movements. In December of
Speaker 1: last year, twenty twenty five, the New Arab hosted a
Speaker 1: very interesting debate between different Pastinian representatives of Hamas Fateh,
Speaker 1: the party of the Palsidian Authority, and a human rights
Speaker 1: activist and writer. And they hosted this in Gaza, literally
Speaker 1: on the grounds of the bombed out of Shippa Hospital,
Speaker 1: and they've debated some key questions, for example, who has
Speaker 1: the right to decide or in peace for Palestinians. How
Speaker 1: can Pastinians understand October seventh, does Hamas need to disarm?
Speaker 1: Who should govern Gaza? And you know what, this may
Speaker 1: come as a shock to both the American left and
Speaker 1: the American right, but the Pasdian speakers at this interview
Speaker 1: did not all agree with each other. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to give a brief roundown of what this panel discussed.
Speaker 1: The main Hamas spokesperson hasn't cast him basically argued that
Speaker 1: decisions on war and peace should be made through national
Speaker 1: consensus within a unified Pastinian institution, not unilaterally by any faction.
Speaker 1: But and in the absence of functioning institutions, then Hamas
Speaker 1: is a part of the Palstinian body politic has a
Speaker 1: right to engage in violence and defend Palestinians. He also
Speaker 1: argued that it wasn't Hamas's fault that there wasn't national
Speaker 1: consensus or functioning national institutions. His narrative was that Hamas
Speaker 1: consistently sought unity first by entering into elections in two
Speaker 1: thousand and six and supporting election attempts that President Mahmoud
Speaker 1: Abbas of the party and the Paladinian authority ended up canceling.
Speaker 1: He also reiterated that Hamas doesn't mind handing over governance
Speaker 1: in Gaza to a technocratic body, which proves, from his perspective,
Speaker 1: that they aren't trying to govern alone. And on the
Speaker 1: question of disarmament, he said Hamas would commit to cease fire,
Speaker 1: they would commit to maybe storing their weapons, but they
Speaker 1: wouldn't disarm entirely, and they maintained that armed tactics are
Speaker 1: illegitimate right. He also emphasized that Israel alone was responsible
Speaker 1: for the destruction of Gaza and that no one could
Speaker 1: have anticipated the level of brutality Israel would unleash now.
Speaker 1: The Fattehespauk's person, Mond Hayek understandably disagreed with many of
Speaker 1: these points. He represents the opposing party, and from his perspective,
Speaker 1: the October seventh attacks were launched without national consensus and
Speaker 1: that Concessus could only operate through the Past Time Liberation
Speaker 1: Organization the PLO, which is the internationally recognized representative of
Speaker 1: the Palestinian people. Hayak also made the reasonable argument that
Speaker 1: even if everyone agrees armed resistance is a right, that
Speaker 1: those engaging in that tactic should consider the regional and
Speaker 1: international context, as well as the impact of these kinds
Speaker 1: of tactics and the likelihood of their success, and in
Speaker 1: his view, because these things were not considered October seventh,
Speaker 1: led to very negative results for Palestinians and a lack
Speaker 1: of meaningful international support. He also admonished Hamas leadership for
Speaker 1: making what he thinks is a political decision of not
Speaker 1: negotiation aiding a ceasefire earlier, accusing them of having been
Speaker 1: able to stop the war in the first six months
Speaker 1: and limit the bloodshed. And finally, he criticized Hamas for
Speaker 1: prolonging negotiations and refusing to put the PA in charge
Speaker 1: of Gaza. And he landed on the argument that there
Speaker 1: could be no future for Hamas from his perspective, as
Speaker 1: part of a national liberation movement unless it accepted the PLO,
Speaker 1: it disarmed, it renounced violence, and understood that the PA,
Speaker 1: the Palsienian Authority, was the only legitimate authority that could
Speaker 1: control both territories the West Bank and Gaza, and the
Speaker 1: way to quote unify Palstinian geography is through the Palsenian
Speaker 1: Authority and doing that would be the only way to
Speaker 1: get back to the state building project I'm just summarizing
Speaker 1: here to be clear, his words, not mine. Now. The
Speaker 1: final panelist, Mustaf Ebrahim is a writer and human rights
Speaker 1: activist in Gaza who took a critical position of both parties.
Speaker 1: He basically said that both Hamas and fate shared the
Speaker 1: blame for the division in the Pastinian body politic and
Speaker 1: the fact that there was a lack of mechanism for
Speaker 1: collective Palstenian decision making and no functioning national institutions. He
Speaker 1: blamed both sides, and he accused both sides of not
Speaker 1: actually being serious about any of the dialogue sessions that
Speaker 1: were held between the two parties in the past in Cairo, Beirut,
Speaker 1: and Beijing. But he agreed with the FATEH spokesperson that
Speaker 1: October seventh has not been allowed to be assessed properly
Speaker 1: and that Palestinians never got to decide if the consequences
Speaker 1: justified whatever October semith was trying to do, and he
Speaker 1: blamed Hamas for that, so, agreeing with the other panelists
Speaker 1: that the rights to resist as legitimate, he also acknowledged
Speaker 1: that disarmament was an internationally demanded condition, so he posed
Speaker 1: the question how would Palestinians navigate this, and from his perspective,
Speaker 1: Hamas should be more flexible on the weapons and disarmament issue,
Speaker 1: especially given the degree of people's suffering and the need
Speaker 1: for reconstruction in Gaza. I summarize all of this for
Speaker 1: you because this debate held in Gaza among people who
Speaker 1: had directly lived through the last two years of genocide,
Speaker 1: should demonstrate that there is no national consensus, and that
Speaker 1: it's not because Pastinians don't know how to resolve these issues,
Speaker 1: it's because they haven't been given the space to do so.
Speaker 1: There has been a lot of discussion about how to
Speaker 1: unify these different parties, about reviving the Pastain Liberation Organization,
Speaker 1: making it more inclusive and democratic and therefore more legitimate
Speaker 1: as an actor, so that it could make decisions the
Speaker 1: Palstinian people would accept, and so that not one faction
Speaker 1: can do what at once can engage in tactics without
Speaker 1: considering the consequences. But none of these attempts, and there
Speaker 1: have been plenty, like the Palstinian National Conference, have really
Speaker 1: been incorporated into discussions of post conflict processes or management
Speaker 1: by the international community. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised when
Speaker 1: the idea we're going with is the quote Board of Peace,
Speaker 1: basically functioning as a colonial oversight board and a club
Speaker 1: for authoritarian regimes. But I digress. I think it's also
Speaker 1: important to make two points here. First, that polling of
Speaker 1: the Palestinian people by the Palstinian Center for Policy and
Speaker 1: Survey Research shows that most Palestinians are not supportive of
Speaker 1: either party, neither Fetah or Hamas. There is a degree
Speaker 1: of malaise and cynicism where both parties are seen as
Speaker 1: a part of an unacceptable status quo. For example, when
Speaker 1: asked about whether they would support a Hamas candidate or
Speaker 1: a fute candidate if elections were held for the presidency,
Speaker 1: thirty four percent of Palstinians say they would vote for
Speaker 1: a Fute candidate, twenty four percent would say a Hamas candidate,
Speaker 1: nine percent would say they would keep president Mahmoud Abbass,
Speaker 1: and a whopping thirty two percent would say they wouldn't
Speaker 1: even vote, and this non voting percentage goes up to
Speaker 1: forty seven percent if the elections are just between Mahamud
Speaker 1: Abbass and a Hamas candidate. And they also ask about
Speaker 1: direct support of political parties, so there's a more direct
Speaker 1: question in the latest poll from October twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: Again it shows twenty four percent support FATE, hardly a majority,
Speaker 1: thy five five percent support MS, again hardly a majority,
Speaker 1: nine percent support third parties, and thirty two percent either
Speaker 1: say they don't know or refuse to answer. So this
Speaker 1: is not a situation where either of these parties have
Speaker 1: a mandate, and it's clear that neither party is representing
Speaker 1: the Pasenian people right now, nor do their actions have
Speaker 1: majority support. Now, some might wonder is this debate emerging
Speaker 1: because of the sheer level of destruction in Gaza. We
Speaker 1: are talking over seventy thousand people killed in Gaza that
Speaker 1: we can even confirm so far. Is it that, in
Speaker 1: this context, this context of severe consequences from Israel, what
Speaker 1: prompted this debate and self reflection? Well, the short answer
Speaker 1: is no. Postenians have always debated these issues, and in
Speaker 1: the absence of a functioning national liberation movement with all
Speaker 1: of its institutions, they haven't been able to hold any
Speaker 1: particular party accountable for its actions. I could point to
Speaker 1: a lot in Pastenian history to demonstrate this, but I'll
Speaker 1: point out an essay by a Postaenian inte actual Asthmibshada
Speaker 1: that he wrote and released within a month of October seventh.
Speaker 1: This essay, titled Moral Matters and Hard Times, again demonstrates
Speaker 1: the Palestinians have never shied away from this discussion and
Speaker 1: indeed made criticisms of these political parties very quickly following
Speaker 1: the attacks. Now, of course, Bashada lays the blame for
Speaker 1: civilian deaths on Israel, given that it targets Palestinian civilians
Speaker 1: as he argues out of racism and as he argues
Speaker 1: to try to turn the population against armed tactics and
Speaker 1: armed resistance, and he quotes Israeli leaders directly here. So
Speaker 1: he talks about President Herzog saying there are no innocence
Speaker 1: in Gaza, and Israeli Defense Minister you Off Gallant at
Speaker 1: the time calling people in Gaza human animals. And he
Speaker 1: also points out that Israeli society at the time was
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly supportive of cutting off food, water, and medicine to Gaza. So,
Speaker 1: although Bashada rejects this kind of absolute evil framing of
Speaker 1: the attacks and says we need to understand the context
Speaker 1: of a seventeen year seage on Gaza settlement expansion incurasions
Speaker 1: on the al axamosk and prisoner mistreatment. He also plainly
Speaker 1: argues that immoral acts committed during October seventh. So to him,
Speaker 1: documented instances of harm to civilians, theft, mistreatment, etc. Are
Speaker 1: not acts of resistance, and in fact, from his perspective,
Speaker 1: they harm legitimate resistance. And he argues again a month
Speaker 1: within the attacks, that the leadership of the quote unquote
Speaker 1: resistance have a duty to clarify what happened and condemn
Speaker 1: those immoral acts. He says, quote having recognized a people's
Speaker 1: right to resist occupation, can it be concluded that we
Speaker 1: are not permitted to judge the morality of acts of
Speaker 1: resistance to occupation? My answer is that, on the contrary,
Speaker 1: it is not only permissible, but perhaps necessary. End quote.
Speaker 1: So he argues that the right to resist does not
Speaker 1: exempt these movements from moral judgment, and distinguishing between legitimate
Speaker 1: military operations and immoral acts against civilians is essential to
Speaker 1: maintaining the justice of the Pastinian cause, even as we
Speaker 1: can acknowledge and emphasize the quote moral depravity of the
Speaker 1: Israeli response end quote. Now, whether you agree with him
Speaker 1: or not, whether you side with one of the panelists
Speaker 1: I mentioned from the interview or the other. What I
Speaker 1: want people to take away from this episode is that
Speaker 1: all of this clearly shows Palestinians have been taking seriously
Speaker 1: the strategic and moral implications of all of these tactics
Speaker 1: arm tactics included, and that there isn't any one party
Speaker 1: that speaks for what Postinians want right now. The only
Speaker 1: way to get national consensus is to allow the Palestinians
Speaker 1: to create or revive the institutions necessary for that to
Speaker 1: take place. Disempowering Palestinians ignoring their aspirations and ignoring the
Speaker 1: need for their input or blocking them from undergoing this
Speaker 1: essential process will only prolong a conflict and put along
Speaker 1: the suffering. That's it for me today. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: It Could Happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: Polsonmedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 1: now find sources for It Could Happen here listed directly
Speaker 1: in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening.