Dada El-Kurd

The main Hamas spokesperson, Hazem Qasim, basically argued that decisions on war and peace should be made through national consensus within a unified Palestinian institution, not unilaterally by any faction, but that in the absence of functioning institutions, then Hamas as a part of the Palestinian 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 2006 and supporting election attempts that President Mohamed Abbas of the Fatah party and the Palestinian 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 ceasefire, they would commit to maybe storing their weapons, but they wouldn't disarm entirely and they maintain that armed tactics are a legitimate 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 Fatah Spokesperson, Munder Hayek, understandably disagreed with many of these points.

He represents the opposing party.

And from his perspective, the October 7th attacks were launched without national consensus and that consensus could only operate through the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO, which is the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people.

Hayek 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 7th 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 negotiating 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 Palestinian Authority, was the only legitimate authority that could control both territories, the West Bank and Gaza.

And the way to, quote, unify Palestinian geography is through the Palestinian 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, Mustafa Ibrahim, is a writer and human rights activist in Gaza who took a critical position of both parties.