ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - Hamas had agreed to cede administration of the Gaza Strip long before the current ceasefire agreement came into effect, a key unofficial backchannel mediator between the Palestinian movement and the United States told Rudaw, likening the possibility of violations to those of the current truce.
Bishara Bahbah is a Palestinian-American academic, businessman, and political activist, reportedly delivered messages between US President Donald Trump's Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff and Hamas during the latest war in Gaza.
Bahbah said, “Earlier this year, Hamas expressed readiness to hand over all its resources in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza,” claiming that “Israel refused,” saying it “only wanted a partial deal." However, when a partial deal was arranged - twice, in May and August of this year - he purported that “Israel changed its mind again, saying it no longer wanted a partial deal; it demanded a comprehensive deal.”
He alleged that Israel "needed Hamas to remain in place to justify continuing the war in Gaza.”
The conflict, the bloodiest in Gaza, began on October 7, 2023 when Hamas launched a surprise incursion into southern Israel, killing more than 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Of those, 47 hostages remained in Gaza - 28 of whom were later pronounced dead.
In response, Israel launched a widescale military campaign. As of Thursday, the Gaza health ministry said nearly 68,000 Palestinians had been killed and about 170,000 injured, in Israeli bombardments.
In early October, US President Trump declared that Israel and Hamas had "signed off" on the first phase of a peace plan designed to end the war. He said the plan would see all hostages released and Israeli troops withdrawn to agreed-upon lines as steps toward what he called a “Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.”
The plan further calls for Hamas to be demilitarized and excluded from any future political role.
On the American interpretation of Hamas disarmament, Bahbah explained that in Washington’s view, “If Hamas handed over its heavy weapons to an Arab-Palestinian side and promised not to develop or smuggle new ones, it would be considered disarmed." This definition notably "allow[s] for individuals to retain small arms for self-defense."
For civilian governance of Gaza, the American-Palestinian academic noted that “a 15-member committee of independent Palestinians had been formed... and everyone agrees that Hamas should step back and allow this committee to manage daily life in Gaza," he confirmed.
Likening the possibility of violations of the current ceasefire, Bahbah noted, “We remain hopeful. A ceasefire is crucial. The people of Gaza are exhausted. Gaza must begin to rebuild and return to some form of normal life.”
He further emphasized the need for a long-term political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While the current US administration fears recognizing a Palestinian state "might be seen as rewarding Hamas for its actions," Bahbah argued that "punishing all Palestinians by withholding statehood recognition is also wrong."
Following is the full transcript of the interview with Bishara Bahbah:
Rudaw: Mr. Bishara, you have been serving as a facilitator since the early stages of the agreement's preparation. How do you view the ceasefire agreement, and what role did you play in convincing Hamas to agree to the release of all the hostages?
Bishara Bahbah: It took us a long time to reach this agreement. When Hamas contacted me earlier this year, it expressed readiness to hand over all its resources in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza. But Israel refused. Israel said it only wanted a partial deal. So we worked for months. By May of this year, a partial deal was ready - and everyone agreed to it. Unfortunately, when it reached Israel, they canceled it. Later, new talks began, and the most recent one was in August. Israel agreed to a partial deal, and a week later, Hamas also agreed to it. But then Israel changed its mind again, saying it no longer wanted a partial deal; it demanded a comprehensive one. The demand [by Hamas] to end the war in exchange for the release of all hostages was made in March. This is not news because Hamas wanted to end the war.
Despite the ceasefire in recent days, several people have been killed in the Gaza Strip. Is there any pressure on Israel to stop those attacks?
Unfortunately, our experience with Israel is not reassuring. For example, when the ceasefire was signed in January of this year - and lasted for two months - Hamas assured me that it didn’t fire a single bullet at Israel.
Meanwhile, during that same period, more than 77 civilians were killed in Gaza. Sadly, this outcome is not surprising given our history with Israel. Still, we remain hopeful. A ceasefire is crucial. The people of Gaza are exhausted. Gaza must begin to rebuild and return to some form of normal life. So, I won’t be surprised if skirmishes take place over the coming weeks.
Mr. Bahbah, you mentioned uncertainty about whether Israel will fully comply with the agreement. Given that Israel insists on keeping the Rafah crossing closed until it recovers the bodies of all the hostages, does this not constitute a violation of the agreement? Or was this condition explicitly granted to Israel as part of the terms?
Yes, the living Israeli hostages were returned to Israel. But Hamas said - and everyone, including the American and Israeli sides, knew that - it would be difficult to locate the bodies. Some bodies had been laid to rest by Hamas members who were later killed themselves. So, it will take time for Israel to recover all 28 bodies.
What confuses me is the world’s singular focus on the Israeli prisoners and bodies, while seemingly ignoring the fact that Israel is holding 11,000 Palestinian prisoners. Around 1,950 have been released, leaving about 9,000 still detained. These are also prisoners of war. Surely they did not enter Israeli prisons voluntarily. Did they walk in of their own accord? No - Israel captured them and imprisoned them.
Mr. Bahbah, one of the key points in the agreement is that Hamas must disarm. However, Hamas has repeatedly stated that it is not willing to do so. Is there a possibility that they will not comply with this condition? Do you have any insight into whether Hamas is prepared to disarm?
As I mentioned, part of our discussions focused on the definition of disarmament. Does disarmament mean only handing over heavy weapons? Does it mean not developing or smuggling weapons in the future? Does it allow for individuals to retain small arms for self-defense?
The American interpretation had been that if Hamas handed over its heavy weapons to an Arab-Palestinian side and promised not to develop or smuggle new ones, it would be considered disarmed. As for individual weapons - the ability for people to defend themselves in case of an attack - this was acceptable under the American definition.
Israel and the United States continuously emphasize that Hamas will have no role in the Gaza Strip in the future. Does Hamas agree to this, and is this included in the agreement?
Months before the current deal, Hamas had proposed transferring the administration of Gaza to an independent Palestinian committee of technocrats. This proposal appeared in some of the draft agreements we were working on. Believe it or not, Israel had removed those items - because Israel needed Hamas to remain in place to justify continuing the war in Gaza.
In my view, Hamas was ready, and reiterated its readiness, to hand over Gaza’s affairs to this technocratic committee. I recently learned that a 15-member committee of independent Palestinians had been formed. Their names were approved by the Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO; Fatah] or the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the Egyptian [mediators]. Israel also reviewed the list and did not object.
So, there is consensus on the civilian administration of Gaza, everyone agrees that Hamas should step back and allow this committee to manage daily life in Gaza.
Regarding Gaza’s security, the situation remains volatile - as it always has. Israel has even recruited certain family and tribal factions to resist Hamas. Now, the key issue for us moving forward is the deployment of Arab,Islamic and Palestinian security forces into Gaza to maintain order. I have heard that the United States is preparing to submit a proposal to the United Nations Security Council for the establishment of an independent Arab-Palestinian-Islamic security force. This is because some countries have [reportedly] stated they will not send forces without a national mandate or an official invitation from the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority.
Do you mean that after this phase, an international force will enter Gaza and manage Gaza from a security perspective?
An international security force. Under this plan, Gaza’s civilian administration would be led by the independent Palestinian committee of 15 members. Security administration, on the other hand, would fall under the United Nations. Its components would mostly consist of Egyptian forces, with contributions from other Arab and possibly Islamic countries, as well as Palestinian personnel. This would allow for a joint approach: the committee handling civilian affairs, and the international force managing security.
There were rumors that Tony Blair is scheduled to become the governor of Gaza. Is something like that going to be implemented, and is it true?
You are Iraqi - you know very well who Tony Blair is and how his name is linked to Iraq and to the death of over a million Iraqi civilians. There are many estimates, but this association is widely known.
There will not be a “governor” of Gaza. Tony Blair will not serve in such a role. He may have an executive role on a peace or reconstruction committee, which will reportedly be chaired by President Trump. Blair has been involved for months in Gaza reconstruction plans and attended meetings with the American president, where he expressed his support. So, if Blair has a role, it will be an executive one - but he will not be governing Gaza. He will not even be present in Gaza.
What about the two-state solution? Some European countries have recently recognized the State of Palestine, but the United States and especially Israel strongly reject it until now. Is there a possibility that Trump will change his mind on this matter?
As far as I know, President Trump has no ideological or practical objection to recognizing a Palestinian state. However, the current US administration fears that doing so might be seen as rewarding Hamas for its actions. Of course, what Hamas did on October 7 was wrong. But punishing all Palestinians by withholding statehood recognition is also wrong. Trump’s plan - which I’ve seen and approved - includes 20 points, one of which outlines a path toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. That is what we hope for: To end the war in Gaza, to begin rebuilding Gaza, and to shift attention to what’s happening in the West Bank. The West Bank is being devoured by Israeli settlements daily. I recently saw a statistic showing that between October 7 and now, Israeli settlers have carried out 38,000 attacks or operations against Palestinians in the West Bank. This is unacceptable. At the end of the day, Palestinians are the only people in the world without a state. This must change.