Mohammad Shtayyeh on Trump, Hamas and Israel

You mentioned the failure of the political track. Is this due to the rise of the extreme nationalist right, which began in the 1970s with Menachem Begin? While many argue that the influence of the far right is growing daily, isn't it true that this shift actually dates back to the 1970s?

Your question is important, Zionism as a colonial movement crossed in three stages:  

1. The first era (1948–1977) was defined by secular labor Zionism, led by Ben-Gurion, which established the State of Israel and was dominated by the Labor Party and its allies.  

2. This was followed by secular Zionism that continued to build Israel and expand settlements, though primarily for political reasons. Then, with the rise of national Zionism under Menachem Begin in 1977, the colonial project became rooted in national security doctrines.  

3. Today, we are in the era of religious Zionism, where the guiding reference for politics is no longer the Supreme Court or the Knesset, but the Torah.

Religious Zionism, in its current form, does not recognise the existence of the other. When the events of October 7 unfolded, Netanyahu declared, "They are the Amalekites." This reference comes from the Torah, where Saul was commanded: "Go to them, kill them—men, women, and children—destroy their trees, their donkeys, and their mules..." This illustrates that the battle Israel is imposing today is driven by a purely religious perspective.  

In contrast, secular Zionism—represented by the Labor Party and its allies—emphasised the unity of the "people" of Israel. Ironically, it was one of Labor's so-called "doves," Haim Ramon, who was responsible for building the separation wall, an emblem of apartheid on Palestinian land. On the other hand, religious Zionism and national Zionism have long championed the unity of the "Land of Israel." This is why today's government insists that Jews have an exclusive right to settle anywhere in the so-called Greater Land of Israel, particularly in Judea and Samaria—the occupied West Bank.  

This makes today's conflict fundamentally different: it is a battle against religious Zionism, which seeks to maintain full control over the "Land of Israel." Within this framework, no political solution is possible—there can be no political solution. The greatest danger arises when religious Zionism aligns with Christian Zionism, which today seeks dominance in American politics. In such a scenario, no resolution will emerge, as it undermines every political initiative proposed for the Palestinian issue since 1937.

First partition decision: 1937

Second partition decision: November 29, 1947

The two-state solution fundamentally means dividing the land into two states on the territory of historic Palestine. Every solution proposed by Palestinians and Arabs, supported by Arab nations, backed by Europe, and even endorsed by some in the United States has been based on this principle of land division.  

However, religious Zionism makes the two-state solution impossible because, for its adherents, the unity of the Land of Israel takes precedence over all else. Under the current Israeli government, there is no solution and no path toward one—unless the balance of power shifts, religious Zionism is defeated, and Israel transitions to what I see as a fourth phase of Zionism: economic Zionism. This emerging model prioritises security-defined borders but is primarily driven by economic interests. While it has yet to fully crystallise, Israel appears to be moving in this direction.

So, what can be done if Smotrich and his fellow Israeli extremists claim that the State of Judah now controls Israel? With Palestinians being completely erased from the political equation, what is the path forward?

Your question is extremely important, so allow me to explain. First, we must ally with time. Time is our enemy in the short term, but it becomes our ally in the long term. Why? Netanyahu and his allies are working to destroy the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state based on the two-state solution, which is rooted in the idea of dividing the land. They want to eliminate this option because religious Zionism does not believe in dividing the land. This is a pivotal moment in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: for the first time, the number of Palestinians in historic Palestine has reached 7.3 million, including three million Muslims between the river and the sea. On the other hand, the number of Jews, including settlers and Israelis, stands at 7.1 million. The Palestinian population is growing at 3.8% annually, while the Israeli population is increasing at just 2.1%. This demographic shift favors the Palestinians in the long run.  

Therefore, if the two-state solution is defeated, we are already living in a one-state reality today. The Palestinian Authority, officially known as the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, was never intended to be permanent. If the two-state solution is no longer a viable option, we are now living in one state. In this case, two things happen:

First, Israel is turning into an apartheid regime. This is what we might call a South Africa-style model of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, based on rights within one state rather than a two-state solution. Israel rejects both the one-state and two-state solutions, so why are we allying with time? Israel is a racist state that practices apartheid against the Palestinians and seeks to establish an apartheid regime. Israeli democracy, as represented in the Knesset, is reserved for Jews and is withheld from Palestinians. So, what should we do today?

We must focus on strengthening the internal front of the Palestinians to face the challenges ahead. This calls for convening a meeting of the Palestinian National Council, uniting the various Palestinian factions to create a nationally agreed political struggle program that aligns on both the goal and the means to achieve it. We cannot pursue peace or war separately; we must unite behind a single political strategy, consolidating vision and action to achieve it. Why is this necessary? We must also strengthen the Arab front and adhere to the Arab position as expressed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The region today is in a state of "liquidity," meaning instability and breakdown. In this context, we can only unite under one Arab scene. Saudi Arabia is currently playing a pivotal role in shaping the region's dynamics, especially regarding Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Saudi Arabia has linked its approach to normalisation with Israel to three main issues, the most important of which is finding a political path that leads to resolving the Palestinian issue.

Furthermore, under Saudi leadership, the goal is to create a balance of interests that reflects a balance of power. The balance of power between Palestinians and Israel cannot be Palestinian-Israeli because it is inherently unbalanced.

Instead, the balance of power must be Arab-Israeli so that Israel cannot isolate Palestinians one by one as it has done in the past. We must learn from past lessons and understand that a balance of interests is rooted in a balance of power. I believe that today, His Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman has taught President Biden a valuable lesson—one Biden will never forget. There are five key lessons that this experience provides:

First, Biden came to Saudi Arabia to rally an Arab alliance against Iran, only for Saudi Arabia to open doors to good neighbourly relations with Iran. This was a significant shift in the regional dynamics.

Two: Chinese-mediated

Three: When Biden asked to raise oil production, the Saudi response was: "Who decides? OPEC+. OPEC+ includes Russia." The Arab summit was attended by all Arab countries, signalling that, in the current state of instability in the region, the balance of interests is shifting. This new balance of power must be based on three key players: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and, of course, Jordan. If this bloc functions effectively, Palestine will be in a stronger position. So, what should we do? We must create a united Palestinian front, ensuring a balance of interests that reflects a balanced power dynamic. In the broader sense, we are allied with time, as we may not achieve our goals today, but the longer-term path is still on our side—especially as Israel attempts to erode the possibility of a two-state solution.

Now, why is the short-term element of time working against us while the long-term is in our favour? Today, there are 761,000 settlers in the West Bank, making up 24% of the total population. When an Israeli like Smotrich speaks of "the State of Judah," what he envisions is not the same as French settler colonialism in Algeria. In Algeria, the coloniser was geographically separated from the colony by the Mediterranean Sea. But in the West Bank, the distance between Kefar Sava (a city in Israel) and Qalqilya (in the West Bank) is just a short walking distance—no more than one kilometre. There are no geographical boundaries separating the West Bank and Israel. 

As for the idea of establishing a "State of Judah" for settlers, that is not realistic. However, what is real is the dominance of settlers in Israeli political decision-making. Settlers who serve in the army are both settlers by night and soldiers by day. They are represented in the Knesset—figures like Smotrich and Ben Gvir, who live in the West Bank, hold significant influence in Israeli politics. This shift has caused Israeli society to turn sharply to the right, and the peace camp has been defeated. There is no viable peace camp or left-wing camp in Israel today, and the left does not have enough votes to hold sway in the Knesset. 

This path has been defeated. Therefore, in the short term, Israel is destroying any hope for a Palestinian state. In the immediate future, we are losing the two-state solution, but our alliance with time gives us hope for the long term. Over time, Israel will become neither a Jewish nor a democratic state, and it will turn into a state with a Palestinian majority. This shift will undermine the very foundation on which Israel was built. Israel was established as a Jewish state, but it is evolving into a racist state, a transformation recognised by the international community.

You mentioned the alliance with time, but where are the tangible achievements of the contemporary Palestinian national movement?

This is an important question. First, we must all remember that Palestinians lived in a state of wandering from 1948 to 1965. The launch of the Fatah movement, with its belief in armed struggle, transformed the Palestinian cause, as I mentioned before, from being a refugee issue to a political one. We fought an existential battle against Israel, and we succeeded in asserting our existence. As Golda Meir said on November 29, 1969, in The Times of London, when asked about the Zionist claim that Palestine was a land without a people, she replied, "Yes." This was the starting point.  

We moved our people from being refugees to having political rights, and the world recognised that the rights of the Palestinian people are inalienable. We fought for the legitimacy of our representation; the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was recognised as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at the Fez Conference in 1974. This was further solidified by the United Nations and the Arab League. We fought against attempts to manipulate the Palestinian cause by regional powers. When Hafez al-Assad and later his son Bashar tried to use the Palestinian cause for their own interests, we resisted them in Tripoli and Lebanon. When Saddam Hussein attempted to do the same, we fought against it. When Gaddafi sought to control it, we did the same. Our commitment to an independent Palestinian national decision was unwavering.

In the post-Iraq and post-Kuwait liberation phase, we understood the evolving balance of power and took a strategic step toward peace by attending the Madrid Conference and later engaging in the Oslo Accords. Through letters exchanged between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, Israel acknowledged the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This led to the creation of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which was a transitional step towards the State of Palestine. The PNA built infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, and established a Palestinian passport that enabled travel worldwide.  

Following this, we pursued recognition for the State of Palestine at the United Nations, and 149 countries granted recognition. However, the Zionist movement, including both religious and nationalist factions, opposed the two-state solution and aimed to thwart the Palestinian march toward independence. Despite this, the concept of an independent Palestine has matured globally. Through the struggle, we've broken Israel's monopoly on pain—the pain of the Holocaust. We went to the International Criminal Court to show that we are victims as well. Israel, which once received unwavering support from Europe, now faces demonstrations worldwide and stands accused of being a criminal state. 

The world today is united in recognising the State of Palestine and the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. This is the result of cumulative struggles, with sacrifices that include thousands of martyrs, prisoners, wounded, orphans, and widows. The path is not complete. We are a Palestinian national liberation movement that has not yet accomplished its full liberation project. We are only halfway through. The struggle is cumulative, and the conflict in Palestine will not end with a single decisive blow. Rather, it will end through the accumulation of points against Israel, the Zionist movement, and its allies. The Palestinian people are making continuous strides toward achieving our rights, and that's why I say our ally is time.

Accountability and criticism are fundamental aspects of political work, and Hamas has chosen to engage in politics. After fifteen months of what has been happening in Gaza—amounting to genocide—what is Hamas's responsibility, particularly given that it has adopted politics in terms of accountability? Do you believe it made a grave strategic political mistake on October 7?

Matters are ultimately judged by their outcomes, meaning they are assessed based on results. Hamas finds itself in a win-win-lose position, while Israel is in a lose-lose-lose situation. As for us, we are in a lose-win position.

Let me explain: Israel lost the first strike—1,200 Israelis were killed within twenty-four hours. To put this into perspective, during the entire Six-Day War in 1967, which involved three Arab states, Israel lost 774 soldiers. So, Israel suffered the initial blow.

Any prisoner exchange constitutes a loss for Israel—ultimately, Israel comes out as the loser.

Additionally, Israel's global image has been severely tarnished, with the country now widely perceived as a criminal state. Right?

Hamas: Hamas secured the first strike with significant momentum. For the first time, it managed to strike inside Israel. Historically, Israel has always pushed battles beyond its borders, but this time, it was forced to fight within its own territory.

The second strike: any prisoner exchange involving female prisoners serving life sentences counts as a victory for Hamas.

However, the third point is that Hamas lost a stronghold. From an analytical and strategic perspective, Hamas miscalculated. It assumed that Israel's response would last only two or three weeks, similar to past conflicts in 2021, 2012, and 2008-2009. Given this, I believe Hamas failed to anticipate the scale of events at the borders, the celebrations, and the unfolding situation. The reality was clearly beyond its expectations.

As a result, Israel's response was devastating. However, in my view, neither has Israel secured a victory nor has Gaza been definitively defeated. Instead, the Palestinian people have borne the brunt of political decisions—of what transpired.

Today, at least 60,000 people have been martyred, with at least 70% of them being women and children. There are 115,000 wounded, while around 291,000 homes and civilian structures have been either partially or completely destroyed, displacing two million Palestinians.

The larger issue at hand is that we, along with Egypt, worked to prevent the forced displacement that Israel had intended. However, from my perspective, there is now a new concern. President el-Sisi has stated that Gaza will require $90bn for reconstruction, while the World Bank estimates the cost at around $45bn. My greatest fear is that Israel will exploit the reconstruction process to facilitate voluntary displacement after its attempt at forced displacement failed.

To put this into perspective, 80,000 homes have been completely destroyed. With an average household size in Gaza of 6.2 people, this means nearly half a million people have lost their homes. In other words, for at least the next seven to ten years, half a million Palestinians will remain without shelter.

That is assuming the necessary funds are even available. When I was Prime Minister in 2023, we were still rebuilding the destruction from the 2014 war on Gaza—and that was when funding existed. But today, who will step forward to finance Gaza's reconstruction? Gaza will be competing for resources alongside Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and possibly Iraq and Libya.

The critical question remains: Where will the money for reconstruction come from?

To sum up my response to your question: Gaza has not been defeated, and Israel has not won, but our people have been slaughtered—plain and simple.

The fundamentals of political work dictate that Hamas has engaged in politics… Accountability—shouldn't Hamas bear responsibility for this political choice?

Based on these facts, yes. However, Hamas now wants the Palestinian Authority to take over Gaza. Why? Because Hamas wants to declare: We are the resistance. We fulfilled our role. Now, you take on the responsibilities—water, electricity, the martyrs, and everything else.

This is a clear evasion of responsibility. It is an attempt to shift the burden.

If there were to be an agreed-upon administrative committee or government, the first priority should have been reaching a consensus—are we moving toward peace or war? That is why, from the outset, I have maintained that it is inconceivable to pursue peace unilaterally and war unilaterally. Such an approach is destructive to the Palestinian national project.

It makes no sense for each party to act independently according to its own vision. As I stated at the outset, there must be a unified and agreed-upon political and resistance programme within Palestine.

No people under occupation have ever achieved victory without unity. Algeria secured its independence through national unity. Every occupied nation throughout history has only triumphed through national unity.

Unfortunately, Palestinians today are not united, and this is precisely where I want to highlight a critical point.

Listen, Ahmed. The Americans initially attempted to topple regimes by fostering political opposition through parliamentary elections, correct? Hamas won a parliamentary election. Morsi won a parliamentary election.

Now, observe the pattern—if elections were held in Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood would likely win. They failed to establish an alternative through democratic channels and parliamentary elections, right?

So, decision-makers—whether in the White House, in think tanks, or within the deep state in America—shifted from promoting political opposition to manufacturing militias for armed opposition.

Rapid intervention militias, the Houthis, and the militias that emerged in Syria—these were militias that succeeded. This is why today's landscape is dominated by militias. And with this, divisions within a nation become vertical, not just horizontal. For this reason, in Palestine, we must put an end to this vertical division. If it remains unresolved, the Palestinian people and their cause will continue to suffer—plain and simple.

Today, the image of the Palestinian cause on the global stage is being reduced to Hamas. Israel seeks to frame the Palestinian struggle as a religious conflict rather than a political one. It wants to redefine the issue as a matter of security rather than a legitimate political struggle. Israel benefits if the conflict is perceived as religious and security-driven. However, it loses if the conflict is recognised as a political struggle.

Do you believe the gap between the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people is widening due to what is happening in Jenin?

Look, I do not deny that there is a gap between the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian street. Nor do I deny that the Palestinian Authority lacks high popularity—I fully acknowledge that.

However, we must approach this issue objectively. How can President Abu Mazen or the Palestinian Authority gain widespread popularity when:

1. They are financially besieged and unable to meet their obligations, struggling even to pay employees' salaries.

2. The Palestinian Authority is geographically besieged, with Israel having effectively reoccupied all cities, villages, and refugee camps. Jenin serves as a prime example, but the same model applies to other towns and villages. While Jenin's case took on a military-security dimension, similar conditions exist in Tulkarm and Nablus. The Israeli army regularly enters Ramallah, the Jalazone refugee camp, Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho, and other areas.

A full reoccupation of Palestinian territory has taken place, with Israel disregarding all prior agreements. In the past, we used to say we did not want a relationship with Israel—today, Israel itself is asserting that it has no need for a relationship with the Palestinian Authority.

Israel has effectively dismantled the contractual framework established by the Oslo Accords. Let me be clear: Israel has killed the Oslo Accords. They no longer exist—they are completely over. The war Israel is waging is unfolding directly on the ground.

Today, the Netanyahu-Ben Gvir-Smotrich coalition has declared war on all components of the Palestinian people, with a particular focus on the Palestinian Authority. Why? Because the Authority represents the state—it is the symbol of Palestinian statehood.

Hamas, on the other hand, has long maintained that the land of Palestine is a religious endowment (waqf). Only recently has it shown openness to the two-state solution. But who embodies the concept of a state? The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). Who embodies the concept of a state? The Authority. As I have told you before, the official name of the Authority is the Palestinian National Authority (PNA)—an Interim Authority. Interim for what? To transition into a state.

Today, 149 countries around the world recognise the State of Palestine. Yet Israel continues to fight against this state. And who represents it? The Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

That is the reality. The Jenin refugee camp, in short, is a model of what Israel seeks to implement on a wider scale. Israel's goal is to erode and dismantle the Palestinian Authority, which is why the Authority is deprived of both financial resources and weaponry.

And let me tell you something—where do the weapons in the West Bank come from? Take the M16 rifle, for instance—it costs 120,000 shekels. Who is selling M16s on the streets of the West Bank? The Israeli mafia who are operating right under the watch of the Israeli army. Because Israel wants the Palestinian people, like any other occupied people, to turn against each other to fight among themselves. This is what Israel seeks, and this is how it manipulates the situation.

That is why Hamas would be making the mistake of a lifetime if it attempts to replicate in the West Bank what happened in Gaza—because Israel will crush us. And let me be absolutely clear, for the sake of honesty and history: If the events of Gaza are transferred to the West Bank, one-third of the West Bank's population will end up in refugee camps in Amman. And what does Israel want? A substitute homeland. It seeks forced or voluntary displacement. It wants expulsion.

Why? Because Israel fully understands the demographic realities I mentioned earlier. So, in the broader picture, yes, the Palestinian Authority is just one element of the equation. Popularity is not measured solely by opinion polls. When I was Prime Minister, during the first two or three months—perhaps some of my colleagues here remember—polls showed we had 91% support. Why? Because there was tangible progress, there was action, and there were results.

The popularity of any political entity or leadership fluctuates based on circumstances. But we must not forget: we are a people under occupation. We are a leadership under occupation. We are a land under occupation. We are a national liberation movement that has yet to achieve its ultimate goal.

We embraced the Authority, and in 2009, Fatah adopted a new strategy—we declared popular resistance as our approach to achieving our rights. Perhaps it did not yield the desired results, but at the very least, it could have generated international sympathy.

Now, consider the unprecedented level of sympathy Israel received on October 7. The US, Germany, and the U.K. took extreme measures—Berlin banned the Palestinian flag, a Palestinian child in Chicago was brutally stabbed to death simply for being Palestinian, and protests were prohibited in the streets of London.

Israel commands a vast media machine—one that shapes narratives, controls labels, and dictates public discourse. It operates relentlessly to frame the Palestinian struggle as nothing more than antisemitism, terrorism, and extremism—plain and simple.

But it seems that Israel has lost the narrative...

Israel has lost the narrative entirely—100%. But at what cost?

It lost control of the narrative because 60,000 people have been killed—70% of them women and children. However, today's reality is vastly different from that of 1948. Back then, 950,000 Palestinians were displaced, yet there were no images to document their suffering.

Today, social media is exposing the pain, devastation, and atrocities inflicted upon the Palestinian people. The world can now see the children who have been killed, the schools and mosques that have been destroyed. This is the reality we are living in.

That is why I must stress: the Palestinian Authority is under siege on all fronts—financially, militarily, geographically, and on the ground. Israel is waging a systematic war against the Authority.

Meanwhile, religious Zionism is fracturing. We are standing, as Mahmoud Darwish once said, "on the edge of the edge."

Israel does not want us to find stability, and at the same time, the international community does not want us to collapse completely. This leaves us trapped in a state of persistent instability.

That is why I say: any political path benefits us, while any military or security approach does not.

Israel can mobilise all its resources—the balance of power is not in our favour. That is why I have always maintained that we must align the balance of interests with the balance of power in order to achieve real and tangible results for Palestine.

Armed factions have emerged in Jenin, claiming they do not belong to Hamas, Fatah, or the established political movements on the scene. Do you think their emergence is due to a loss of faith and trust in the two main political factions?

No, no. Palestinians have lost faith in the political process itself as a path to a solution. If you ask a Palestinian today: Do you want a two-state solution? They will say: Yes. Yet if you ask them: Do you want a one-state solution? They will also say: Yes.

Palestinians are searching for a solution. Israel has backed them into a corner.

When Israel raids your home, kills your children, arrests them, and does all of this without a single voice in the world commanding Israel to stop, what do you expect?

Israel exercises sheer brutality in the Palestinian territories, behaving like a cowboy in the American Wild West—an outlaw in a lawless land.

The Palestinian Authority is caught in a paradox: it has agreements with Israel, yet its backbone is Fatah—a movement that was originally meant to be a tool of resistance, alongside the factions of the PLO. But the political path Fatah pursued has been systematically sabotaged.

People want a solution. Their land is being seized. Settlers have turned into killing machines. The Dawabsheh family was burned alive. Every day, trees are uprooted. From 1967 until today, Israel has uprooted 2.5 million trees in the West Bank and Gaza—including 800,000 olive trees. Homes have been demolished. Trees have been uprooted.

Before October 7, there were 5,261 Palestinian prisoners—some sentenced to 700 years, others to 1,000 years, and some to 400 years.

A delegation from South Africa once visited me, and after witnessing the apartheid system we live under, they told me it was even worse than what had existed in South Africa.

This is why Palestinians feel crushed and are desperately searching for a solution. Jenin is an expression of deep oppression. Jenin is a reflection of the failure of the political process.

Let me be clear—if the political process had succeeded, Hamas would never have won the elections in 2006.

This is why Israel is deliberately sabotaging the Palestinian political project because it seeks to swallow up all Palestinian land.

Given the shifting regional landscape following the events of October 7—the Israeli response, its military operations in Yemen and Iran, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, and developments in Lebanon and Syria—Hassan Nasrallah's assertion that Israel is "weaker than a spider's web" and could be eliminated within hours or days now appears outdated and entirely unrealistic. What is your perspective? How do you view engagement with Israel today?

Look, in my opinion, some Arab politicians lack a conceptual framework for analysis. Anyone who believes Israel stands alone is mistaken. Israel is not merely a society; it is a coalition—an assembly rather than a community. This assembly serves the interests of external powers. Initially, that power was Britain, and after World War II, it became the United States.

When the Obama administration presented a proposal to Congress allocating $38bn in aid to Israel over ten years—$3.8bn annually—we asked John Kerry why the US was providing such a substantial sum. His response was that the return on investment for the United States was significantly greater.

This explains why, since October 7, US weapons stockpiles have been opened to Israel, and the entire cost of the war in Gaza has been borne by America. I should also point out that some Arab states will ultimately shoulder part of this war's financial burden. Some will be accused of funding Hamas and could face lawsuits in American courts.

As for the region today, Iran has approached it from a non-Arab, trilateral perspective in an attempt to establish dominance over the Arab world. Unfortunately—and I say this with regret in an Arabic-language publication—Arabs today resemble satellite dishes: they receive but do not transmit. We must move beyond this passive state towards a framework of interwoven interests.

There are three non-Arab states seeking to dominate the region. The first is Türkiye, which, after being rejected by the European bloc, pivoted towards the Arab East. Türkiye's strategic misstep was its alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, a move that ultimately led to significant losses.

The second is Israel, which initially pursued military dominance before attempting to shift towards economic hegemony. However, it failed in the latter, as Arab normalisation did not bring economic advantages but instead served to expand Israel's security boundaries—and, in some cases, its geographical reach, as seen in southern Lebanon and the annexation of Syrian territory up to 15 kilometres deep. The most alarming development today is that Israel's security borders have now extended to Iran's doorstep.

The third power is Iran itself, which has sought to establish defensive lines through proxy militias—such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas. However, with the weakening of these proxies, Israel has gained the ability to strike Iran directly, and that is why I told you that the region is in a state of fluidity.

As Arabs, we must consolidate this fluidity and mould it into a framework based on interwoven or balanced interests grounded in the logic of power equilibrium. I firmly believe that the current landscape necessitates an Arab regrouping—bringing together North Africa, the Gulf states, the Levant, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt as pivotal players in the equation, alongside Jordan and Palestine.

The entire region requires leadership. I believe that a coalition comprising Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, and countries like Algeria could be capable of shaping a new regional order. Today, Israel perceives itself as having expanded into unprecedented areas. However, what Nasrallah and others previously asserted, in my view, stemmed from a failure to recognise that Israel is nothing more than a military outpost for the Americans.

With Donald Trump assuming office in the United States just hours before this interview, he declared that the Gaza war is "not our war". He described Gaza as a beautiful coastal location with good weather, viewing it as though it were prime real estate for investment. How do you analyse Trump's stance on Palestine?

The sociologist Max Weber, in 1840, classified world leaders into three categories. The first comprises classical leaders. The second includes iconic figures—leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah, Yasser Arafat, King Hussein, and King Faisal, all of whom were considered icons. Today, Mohammed bin Salman is regarded as a "rising star," an iconic leader in the making.

The third category consists of populist leaders. According to Weber, populist leaders share four defining traits: they are narcissistic and self-absorbed, they are selfish, they are anti-institutional, and, most notably, they are unpredictable.

Yes, Trump also embodies the theory of egocentrism—self-interest and inward-looking tendencies.

Exactly. And because he is unpredictable, I prefer not to apply this classification to any specific figure. However, history often repeats itself.

President Trump: As Arabs, we must bypass his team and engage with him directly. His team consists of ideologues who do not assess matters through a lens of strategic interests but rather from a strictly ideological standpoint, particularly regarding the Palestinian issue. This is why a serious and direct dialogue must be held with President Trump himself.

The intertwining of Saudi-US interests serves as one of the key safety nets that could prevent Palestinian land from being completely swallowed up. Saudi Arabia's firm stance on conditional normalisation—linking it to resolving the Palestinian issue—remains one of the few viable options within the Arab political landscape. A potential French-Saudi agreement on an international conference would ultimately require the United States to be part of this bloc. President Trump aspires to win a Nobel Prize—so let him have the opportunity, but he must first prove that he is capable of delivering peace in the region.

Every US president has ultimately reached an impasse when dealing with the Palestinian issue. President Jimmy Carter famously described Israel as an "apartheid state" and affirmed that Palestinians have inalienable rights. Then came President George H.W. Bush, who pursued the Madrid process in 1991 under the "land for peace" formula.

President Bill Clinton later introduced the "Clinton Parameters," followed by George W. Bush, who launched the Annapolis process and voiced support for an independent Palestinian state. President Barack Obama dispatched John Kerry, who held 46 rounds of negotiations with Abu Mazen, culminating in the so-called "Framework Agreement," which offered even less than the Clinton Parameters.

Then came Donald Trump with the so-called "Deal of the Century," which sought to annex 30% of the West Bank and proposed a Palestinian state with no borders, no Jerusalem, no right of return for refugees, and no settlements removed.

 …And without weapons.

Exactly. Without weapons. So, what exactly does President Trump intend to offer the Palestinian people?

Yesterday, the US ambassador to the United Nations was questioned in the Senate and stated that she supports settlements in Judea and Samaria. Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defence has a tattoo on his arm symbolising his stance, and the Secretary of State is ideologically committed to supporting Israel—he even has the Jerusalem Cross tattooed on his chest.

A tattoo about Jerusalem

No, it is a tattoo of Jesus Christ in Hebrew. That is religious Zionism; that is Christian Zionism. This is precisely why I believe we must initiate dialogue with President Trump before he decides to place something on our empty plate.

Today, the Arab plate is empty—there is no initiative. The Arab Peace Initiative, one of the most significant outcomes of the Arab Summit in Beirut in 2002, was unfortunately stillborn. Can it be revived? Yes. Can it be reformulated to accommodate current realities? From our perspective, absolutely. However, we must preserve the core principle on which the initiative was built: land for peace. Land for peace.

That is why I argue that in the coming four years of Trumpism, we need a unified Arab stance—led by Saudi Arabia in its dialogue with Washington—to safeguard the national rights of the Palestinian people. We must transition from the oppression that Palestinians endure to a position of resilience. We must move from the current regional fluidity to a more structured state, where interests are interwoven with those of other nations—because international relations are built on shared interests, not on shared ethics and values.

If any country upholds ethics and values, that is welcome, as Arabs certainly have these principles. However, we must shift from the realm of ethics and values to the realm of intersecting interests—because that is what will ultimately protect Palestine.

For this reason, the current US administration requires direct dialogue, and I believe this dialogue must take place at the presidential level. Trump's team acts as a filter, determining what reaches him and what does not.

In any case, we are ready. The Palestinian leadership, led by President Abu Mazen, is prepared to engage in any serious discussion. However, there is one thing we cannot return to—sitting at the negotiation table once again. We have already been negotiating for 34 years. I am not saying we have achieved nothing; we have made significant progress. But we have yet to complete our project.

Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh, former Palestinian Prime Minister and prominent economist, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for having me, and thanks to your team as well. Much appreciated.