Podcast Summary: Palestinians Debate Armed Tactics

It Could Happen Here — March 17, 2026
Host: Dada Elk Hearn
Produced by: Cool Zone Media & iHeartPodcasts

Overview

In this episode of It Could Happen Here, Dada Elk Hearn (Associate Professor of Political Science and senior fellow at the Arab Center Washington) offers a deep dive into the bitter internal Palestinian debates over armed resistance, disarmament, and postwar governance in Gaza. Drawing on recent panel discussions among diverse Palestinian representatives, Elk Hearn emphasizes the lack of consensus on armed tactics, the legitimacy and limitations of resistance, and the public’s cynicism toward existing political factions. The episode focuses on Palestinian agency, critiques imposed international solutions, and foregrounds authentic local debate.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Gaza Post-Ceasefire: Ongoing Crisis and International Dynamics

[02:59–06:16]

• Despite a ceasefire, major violence persists in Gaza: over 600 killed, hundreds injured, and more than 1,600 ceasefire violations by Israeli forces.
• Israeli-imposed “yellow line” restricts Palestinians and enables aggressive policing; Israeli-backed gangs are reportedly active with impunity.
• Rafah crossing reopens, but only a fraction of the 20,000+ sick or wounded are allowed to pass each day. Conditions for crossing are harsh and unpredictable.
• Humanitarian and commercial aid remains heavily restricted through Israeli-controlled checkpoints.
• At the Munich Security Conference, US and EU diplomats underscore that ongoing violence (from both sides) undermines postwar Palestinian governance plans, especially the committee expected to oversee reconstruction.

2. Disarmament as Policy: American, Israeli & Palestinian Official Positions

[06:16–08:04]

• Disarmament of Hamas is a condition for reconstruction and international security support.

• Excerpts from US leadership:

  • Jacob Goldstein (quoting Trump):
    “If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them. They know I’m not playing games, okay?” [06:19]
  • Ambassador Mike Waltz: International security force has the mandate to “disarm Hamas one way or the other. […] President Trump has repeatedly said Hamas will disarm one way or another. The easy way or the hard way.” [07:58]

• Hamas stance:

  • Senior Hamas leader Khaled Mishal: Willing perhaps to “freeze” weapons or store them, but not to disarm unless within a recognized Palestinian military structure for self-defense.
  • Hamas does not accept a foreign military force inside Gaza, only as border observers. They see disarmament as an Israeli, not a true international, demand.

3. The Palestinian Debate: Armed Resistance, Governance, and Representation

[09:44–19:43]

The New Arab’s Gaza Debate (December 2025)

Brings together:

• Hamas Representative: Hazm Qasim
• Fateh (Palestinian Authority) Representative: Mund Hayek
• Independent Writer/Human Rights Activist: Mustafa Ibrahim

Hamas Representative: Hazm Qasim

• Armed tactics should be decided by national Palestinian consensus, but in the absence of functional institutions, Hamas claims the right to defend Palestinians.
• Claims Hamas has repeatedly sought unity and is open to relinquishing governance to a technocratic body.
• Refuses full disarmament, views armed resistance as legitimate, places blame for Gaza’s destruction squarely on Israel.

Fateh Representative: Mund Hayek

• October 7 attacks were undertaken without consensus and failed to consider strategic consequences.
• Only the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has legitimacy to determine war and peace; the PA should control both West Bank and Gaza.
• Calls for Hamas to disarm, renounce violence, and accept PA leadership, arguing “there could be no future for Hamas… unless it accepted the PLO…it disarmed, it renounced violence…” [15:44]
• Criticizes Hamas for alleged unwillingness to negotiate and for prolonging the war.

Independent: Mustafa Ibrahim

• Blames both Hamas and Fateh for division and lack of Palestinian national mechanisms to resolve conflict or hold groups accountable.
• Acknowledges legitimacy of resistance, but pushes for Hamas to show flexibility about weapons due to Gaza’s suffering and need for reconstruction.
• Stresses that neither side has true legitimacy or consensus:
  “There is no national consensus and it’s not because Palestinians don’t know how to resolve these issues. It’s because they haven’t been given the space to do so.” [17:37]

4. Public Opinion: Disenchantment with Political Factions

[19:43–21:13]

• Polling (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research): Most Palestinians support neither Hamas nor Fateh.
  • Only 24% support Fateh, 35% Hamas; 32% are undecided or refuse to answer.
  • When asked about presidential elections: 34% would vote for Fateh, 24% for Hamas, 9% for current President Abbas, and 32% wouldn’t vote at all.

Dada Elk Hearn:
“Neither party is representing the Palestinian people right now, nor do their actions have majority support.” [20:45]

• Many Palestinians would abstain from voting entirely, reflecting cynicism and disempowerment.

5. Historical Debate & Moral Bounds of Resistance

[21:13–23:39]

• This debate long predates current destruction.
  • Elk Hearn references Azmi Pshara’s essay, Moral Matters and Hard Times, written within a month of October 7.
  • Pshara criticizes both Israeli brutality and Hamas tactics:
    • Civilian deaths are Israel’s responsibility, but acts of mistreatment by Palestinian fighters are “not resistance.”
    • Quotes:
      “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.” [22:55]
    • Emphasizes that resistance must be just; immoral acts undermine the Palestinian cause.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Dada Elk Hearn:
  “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 Palestinians want right now.” [23:28]
• Mund Hayek (Fateh), paraphrased:
  There is no future for Hamas in a national liberation movement unless it accepts the PLO, disarms, renounces violence, and allows the PA to govern Gaza. [15:44]
• Mustafa Ibrahim:
  “Both Hamas and Fateh share the blame for the division in the Palestinian body politic and the fact that there was a lack of mechanism for collective Palestinian decision making and no functioning national institutions.” [17:04]
• Khaled Mishal (Hamas):
  “We accept them (international forces) 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...to clash with Palestinians and disarm them.” [07:05]
• Azmi Pshara:
  “The right to resist does not exempt these movements from moral judgment. Distinguishing between legitimate military operations and immoral acts against civilians is essential to maintaining the justice of the Palestinian cause…even as we can acknowledge and emphasize the 'moral depravity of the Israeli response.’” [22:53]

Important Segment Timestamps

• 02:59: Dada Elk Hearn introduces Gaza's current post-ceasefire conditions
• 06:16–08:04: International and US pressure on Hamas to disarm
• 09:44–14:45: Recap of the New Arab panel in Gaza with representatives from Hamas, Fateh, and an independent activist
• 19:43–21:13: Public polling shows lack of consensus and decline in party legitimacy
• 21:13–23:39: Discussion of the historical, moral, and strategic debate within Palestinian society

Conclusion

Final Takeaway:
Palestinians are actively, intensely debating armed tactics, moral boundaries, and the reality of disunity under occupation. No single faction represents the popular will, nor is there a simple consensus on how resistance and reconstruction should proceed. International solutions that ignore Palestinian agency and the need for revived inclusive institutions are likely to perpetuate suffering and conflict rather than resolve it.

Host’s Closing Words:
“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 the conflict and prolong the suffering.” [23:38]