Abed Rabbo to Asharq Al-Awsat: Hamas’ Sinwar Was Stunned by Extent of Oct. 7 Breach

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, mounted by Hamas on Oct.7, has left Palestinians at a critical juncture, torn between a potential new disaster and the hope for a Palestinian state.

Many questions linger: What about Hamas’ recent actions? How will Israel respond? What conditions does Hamas have for joining a peaceful settlement? And what about the Palestinian Authority’s plans for the future?

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Yasser Abed Rabbo, a key figure in Palestinian politics since the late 1960s, shared his insights into the current situation: “Palestinians are facing an unprecedented crisis, surpassing even the historic Nakba (the catastrophe) of the past.”

“Back then, the Palestinian national movement was fractured, replaced by Arab initiatives that fell short of truly safeguarding Palestinian rights,” he added.

A fresh ‘Nakba’ in a changed landscape

In this new crisis, with its flaws laid bare by recent tragedies like the war in Gaza and the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, the Palestinian national movement endures.

This movement, according to Abed Rabbo, can’t be wiped out or replaced, regardless of military outcomes. It’s not just about comparing past Israeli brutality to today’s. The tools for killing and destruction are far more advanced now, but the aim remains unchanged.

Back in 1948, around 500 Palestinian villages, towns, and cities were destroyed, with a harshness no less than what we see today.

But now, Palestinians have a stronger memory than before.

Back in 1948, they couldn't imagine being completely removed from their homeland. Today, Palestinians of all ages fear being forced out of their land again, seeing this threat as real and tangible. They’re determined to defend their land, despite the destruction in Gaza.

Among the rubble, Palestinians declare: “I won't leave my homeland.” These words reflect the awareness built up over seventy years. Palestinian self-reliance can make a significant difference now.

The world isn't entirely pro-Israel. Some Western political circles support Israel, but with hesitance and, at times, shame, said Abed Rabbo.

Even those sympathetic to Israel acknowledge that a Palestinian state is the solution. They try to downplay Israeli crimes in Gaza, past and present. Today, some call Palestinians “subhuman,” while others openly advocate for expelling Gazans and expanding settlements, he added.

Nevertheless, the world is pressing Israel for accountability like never before. The International Criminal Court’s actions are significant. Despite Israel’s history of crimes against Palestinians, it has never faced trial for genocide, remarked Abed Rabbo.

What role for Hamas?

When asked if Hamas can help solve the problem, he noted that it is hard to say unless the Palestinian group is willing to rethink some of its approaches. While Hamas has been a strong Palestinian force and a key player in past uprisings, it needs to reconsider some of its strategies for real progress.

For Hamas to stay relevant, it needs to rethink its game plan, especially after the recent Gaza tragedy, stressed Abed Rabbo.

Israel’s aim to devastate Gaza completely raises serious questions. Despite potential accusations and sanctions, Hamas must decide its next move, he went on to say.

Consider this: While Hamas faces terrorism charges, Israeli settler activities in Palestinian territories go unchecked, involving killings and destruction.

However, there’s still room for Hamas to adapt, as history has shown with other Palestinian factions like Fatah. They managed to bounce back despite setbacks. Hamas needs to engage with the world and learn from the Palestinian experience, which can’t endure repeated tragedies indefinitely, clarified Abed Rabbo.

Sinwar and Arafat’s influence

When asked if Yahya al-Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, could accept what Yasser Arafat agreed to in the 1993 Oslo Accords, Abed Rabbo’s response was straightforward: “Yes.”

According to the veteran politician, learning from past experiences, Sinwar, unlike some ideologues, can adapt to changing situations.

Sinwar had joined Hamas during the first intifada in 1987 as part of its Islamic and resistance movement.

Another point is that the outcome of the Palestinian breach of Gaza’s borders on Oct. 7 was unexpected. It was perhaps meant to be a limited operation, involving the capture of some soldiers and minor clashes, said Abed Rabbo.

The aim was to initiate a limited confrontation with Israel, with minimal shelling and destruction, to improve conditions in Gaza under the suffocating Israeli blockade.

Abed Rabbo explained that Hamas had hoped to enhance livelihoods, economics, and possibly even secure geographical terms like a port or airport. Additionally, the movement sought conditions for Israel to accept Hamas leadership in Gaza politically.

This unexpected explosion, termed a failure by Israelis, may have surprised Sinwar and others, revealed Abed Rabbo.

Operation Al-Aqsa Flood: A military move

Regarding if he was aware of any regional timing when the Al-Aqsa Flood operation began, Abed Rabbo said no. He believes it wasn’t orchestrated by Iran or any other external force.

Hamas, according to Abed Rabbo, has ties with Iran but also seeks relations beyond that.

The Hamas leadership outside Gaza was caught off guard, leaving others, like himself, surprised, acknowledged Abed Rabbo.

Some tried to justify it as a decision by the internal military leadership, deflecting responsibility from the political leadership.

Hamas didn't anticipate Israel exploiting the situation to launch a destructive campaign, emphasized Abed Rabbo.

External forces, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, were surprised by the operation’s launch, asserted Abed Rabbo, adding that Iranian and Hezbollah leaders immediately tried to distance themselves from the operation mounted by Hamas.

Abed Rabbo also believes that the decision for launching the attack came from Hamas leaders in Gaza. They expected a smaller-scale operation and a limited Israeli response. But they were surprised by their own success and quickly capitalized on it by obtaining weapons from captives, causing a shock within Israel.

Need for renewing the Palestinian Authority

The recent events in Gaza highlight the urgent need for a fresh start in Palestinian leadership.

Keeping frank, Abed Rabbo pointed to the growing international talk about the need for a new Palestinian Authority. While some may see this as an excuse by global powers to dodge their responsibility, it's worth considering.

With a unified Palestinian leadership, including Hamas, Palestinians could have handled the situation more effectively, using all available resources to protect Palestinian interests.

It’s time to rethink priorities and strategies for a better outcome, stressed Abed Rabbo.

Missing chances to unite Palestinian forces has led to unilateral actions that caught others off guard, he lamented.

Palestinians need to seriously rebuild their unity under a single leadership and revive leadership within the national authority to navigate the current situation and seize diplomatic opportunities, advised Abed Rabbo.

Reforming the Palestinian Authority and Hamas: Are they willing?

As for whether the Palestinian Authority and Hamas could change for the better, Abed Rabbo said he thinks it is possible.

He believes Hamas needs to adapt to avoid a dire fate. Currently, the movement enjoys widespread support among Palestinians and in the Arab world.

Some argue that the conflict predates recent events, going back to the shortcomings of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which failed to curb Israeli occupation and settlement expansion.

Hamas and Fatah both have the potential, but it needs a real commitment from both sides to rethink their political approaches, said Abed Rabbo.

What Palestinians need is a government that represents national unity, not one faction over another.

Not a Hamas-led government in Gaza or a Fatah-led government in the West Bank, but a unified government embraced by all parties and trusted by Palestinians and the international community to work towards the goal of an independent Palestinian state, urged Abed Rabbo.

In 2006, after a bruising monthlong war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah armed group, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted for a resolution to end the conflict and pave the way for lasting security along the border.

But while relative calm stood for nearly two decades, Resolution 1701’s terms were never fully enforced.

Now, figuring out how to finally enforce it is key to a US-brokered deal that brought a ceasefire Wednesday.

In late September, after nearly a year of low-level clashes, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into all-out war and an Israeli ground invasion. As Israeli jets pound deep inside Lebanon and Hezbollah fires rockets deeper into northern Israel, UN and diplomatic officials again turned to the 2006 resolution in a bid to end the conflict.

Years of deeply divided politics and regionwide geopolitical hostilities have halted substantial progress on its implementation, yet the international community believes Resolution 1701 is still the brightest prospect for long-term stability between Israel and Lebanon.

Almost two decades after the last war between Israel and Hezbollah, the United States led shuttle diplomacy efforts between Lebanon and Israel to agree on a ceasefire proposal that renewed commitment to the resolution, this time with an implementation plan to try to reinvigorate the document.

What is UNSC Resolution 1701? In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from most of southern Lebanon along a UN-demarcated “Blue Line” that separated the two countries and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in Syria. UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) peacekeepers increased their presence along the line of withdrawal.

Resolution 1701 was supposed to complete Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and ensure Hezbollah would move north of the Litani River, keeping the area exclusively under the Lebanese military and UN peacekeepers.

Up to 15,000 UN peacekeepers would help to maintain calm, return displaced Lebanese and secure the area alongside the Lebanese military.

The goal was long-term security, with land borders eventually demarcated to resolve territorial disputes.

The resolution also reaffirmed previous ones that call for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon — Hezbollah among them.

“It was made for a certain situation and context,” Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese army general, told The Associated Press. “But as time goes on, the essence of the resolution begins to hollow.”

Has Resolution 1701 been implemented? For years, Lebanon and Israel blamed each other for countless violations along the tense frontier. Israel said Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force and growing arsenal remained, and accused the group of using a local environmental organization to spy on troops.

Lebanon complained about Israeli military jets and naval ships entering Lebanese territory even when there was no active conflict.

“You had a role of the UNIFIL that slowly eroded like any other peacekeeping with time that has no clear mandate,” said Joseph Bahout, the director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy at the American University of Beirut. “They don’t have permission to inspect the area without coordinating with the Lebanese army.”

UNIFIL for years has urged Israel to withdraw from some territory north of the frontier, but to no avail. In the ongoing war, the peacekeeping mission has accused Israel, as well as Hezbollah, of obstructing and harming its forces and infrastructure.

Hezbollah’s power, meanwhile, has grown, both in its arsenal and as a political influence in the Lebanese state.

The Iran-backed group was essential in keeping Syrian President Bashar Assad in power when armed opposition groups tried to topple him, and it supports Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Yemen. It has an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, including precision-guided missiles pointed at Israel, and has introduced drones into its arsenal.

Hanna says Hezbollah “is something never seen before as a non-state actor” with political and military influence.

How do mediators hope to implement 1701 almost two decades later? Israel's security Cabinet approved the ceasefire agreement late Tuesday, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office. The ceasefire began at 4 am local time Wednesday.

Efforts led by the US and France for the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah underscored that they still view the resolution as key. For almost a year, Washington has promoted various versions of a deal that would gradually lead to its full implementation.

International mediators hope that by boosting financial support for the Lebanese army — which was not a party in the Israel-Hezbollah war — Lebanon can deploy some 6,000 additional troops south of the Litani River to help enforce the resolution. Under the deal, an international monitoring committee headed by the United States would oversee implementation to ensure that Hezbollah and Israel’s withdrawals take place.

It is not entirely clear how the committee would work or how potential violations would be reported and dealt with.

The circumstances now are far more complicated than in 2006. Some are still skeptical of the resolution's viability given that the political realities and balance of power both regionally and within Lebanon have dramatically changed since then.

“You’re tying 1701 with a hundred things,” Bahout said. “A resolution is the reflection of a balance of power and political context.”

Now with the ceasefire in place, the hope is that Israel and Lebanon can begin negotiations to demarcate their land border and settle disputes over several points along the Blue Line for long-term security after decades of conflict and tension.

Abed Rabbo to Asharq Al-Awsat: Hamas’ Sinwar Was Stunned by Extent of Oct. 7 Breach