[News] Hamas Leader Khaled Meshaal: Trump Should Heed the Growing Calls Within MAGA and Reject Israel’s Agenda
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Mon Dec 15 16:09:22 EST 2025
In an exclusive interview, Meshaal makes the case that Trump should
definitively end Israel’s multi-decade war of annihilation and open a
new era in U.S.-Palestine relations.
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
͏ ͏ ͏
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here
<https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZHJvcHNpdGVuZXdzLmNvbS9zdWJzY3JpYmU_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY2FtcGFpZ249ZW1haWwtc3Vic2NyaWJlJnI9bHZwcGImbmV4dD1odHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dy5kcm9wc2l0ZW5ld3MuY29tJTJGcCUyRmhhbWFzLWxlYWRlci1raGFsZWQtbWVzaGFhbC1pbnRlcnZpZXctdHJ1bXAtbWFnYS11bml0ZWQtc3RhdGVzLXN1cHBvcnQtaXNyYWVsLWdhemEtbmV0YW55YWh1IiwicCI6MTgxNjk1NzQwLCJzIjoyNTEwMzQ4LCJmIjp0cnVlLCJ1IjozNjc1MTU4MywiaWF0IjoxNzY1ODE5NDAwLCJleHAiOjIwODEzOTU0MDAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wIiwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.rfQCLP_xJQsZfjyqxLlzcGpQcbGAFY6mT_jAA4iJK9A?>
for more
Hamas Leader Khaled Meshaal: Trump Should Heed the Growing Calls
Within MAGA and Reject Israel’s Agenda
<https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2510348&post_id=181695740&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=lvppb&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNjc1MTU4MywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTgxNjk1NzQwLCJpYXQiOjE3NjU4MTk0MDAsImV4cCI6MTc2ODQxMTQwMCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI1MTAzNDgiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.Fcy-EY8d2aXzf3DndDNxDdgn8KfjzxNztZCTtIoXHAo>
In an exclusive interview, Meshaal makes the case that Trump
should definitively end Israel’s multi-decade war of annihilation
and open a new era in U.S.-Palestine relations.
Jeremy Scahill <https://substack.com/@jeremyscahill> and Jawa Ahmad
<https://substack.com/@jawaahmad>
Dec 15, 2025
<https://substack.com/@jeremyscahill> <https://substack.com/@jawaahmad>
<https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2510348&post_id=181695740&utm_source=substack&isFreemail=true&submitLike=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNjc1MTU4MywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTgxNjk1NzQwLCJyZWFjdGlvbiI6IuKdpCIsImlhdCI6MTc2NTgxOTQwMCwiZXhwIjoxNzY4NDExNDAwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjUxMDM0OCIsInN1YiI6InJlYWN0aW9uIn0.f2fBl7Hx3tFn6hSU_KW7MxvkLqCf5I6EBP_n0akQE6c&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-reaction&r=lvppb>
<https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2510348&post_id=181695740&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&isFreemail=true&comments=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNjc1MTU4MywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTgxNjk1NzQwLCJpYXQiOjE3NjU4MTk0MDAsImV4cCI6MTc2ODQxMTQwMCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI1MTAzNDgiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.Fcy-EY8d2aXzf3DndDNxDdgn8KfjzxNztZCTtIoXHAo&r=lvppb&utm_campaign=email-half-magic-comments&action=post-comment&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email>
<https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2510348&post_id=181695740&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&action=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=lvppb&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNjc1MTU4MywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTgxNjk1NzQwLCJpYXQiOjE3NjU4MTk0MDAsImV4cCI6MTc2ODQxMTQwMCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI1MTAzNDgiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.Fcy-EY8d2aXzf3DndDNxDdgn8KfjzxNztZCTtIoXHAo>
<https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9vcGVuLnN1YnN0YWNrLmNvbS9wdWIvZHJvcHNpdGVuZXdzL3AvaGFtYXMtbGVhZGVyLWtoYWxlZC1tZXNoYWFsLWludGVydmlldy10cnVtcC1tYWdhLXVuaXRlZC1zdGF0ZXMtc3VwcG9ydC1pc3JhZWwtZ2F6YS1uZXRhbnlhaHU_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.hCEDOYYV31DXKp30vm4MnhNvP0BFpTgvLCtyIKKSVTg?&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email>
READ IN APP
<https://open.substack.com/pub/dropsitenews/p/hamas-leader-khaled-meshaal-interview-trump-maga-united-states-support-israel-gaza-netanyahu?utm_source=email&redirect=app-store&utm_campaign=email-read-in-app>
<https://substack.com/redirect/11d5331d-bea5-43ee-949b-4bdfecc1f4f9?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>Khaled
Meshaal in Doha, Qatar, on August 10, 2014. Photo: KARIM JAAFAR/AFP via
Getty Images.
DOHA, QATAR—If President Donald Trump wants to achieve stability in the
Middle East, he should put an end to Israeli interference in U.S. policy
toward Palestine, senior Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal told Drop Site.
Instead, Meshaal said, the U.S. should enter into a genuine process of
direct negotiations with Hamas and other Palestinian political factions
aimed at establishing friendly, bilateral relations.
“Unfortunately, one of the problems with the U.S. administration is that
it prioritizes Israel’s interests more than the United States’ own
interests. Even Trump’s people—MAGA—came to realize that Israel is a
burden on them, restricting and harming U.S. interests. I am simply
calling on the American people and the U.S. administration to judge
based on America’s interests, not Israel’s,” Meshaal said. “If they look
at us even for a moment in a fair and impartial way, they will see that
the Palestinian people are oppressed under occupation, and they have the
right to resist—unless America steps in and forces Israel to withdraw,
in which case we would thank America.” He added, “When the world fails
to help you, you have no choice but to resist the occupier until you
force it to withdraw.”
Meshaal, who is currently the head of Hamas outside of Palestine, was a
founding member of the movement and is one of its most experienced and
internationally well-known leaders. In the decade before Hamas launched
in 1987, Meshaal was part of a group that created the architecture for
the formation of a new Islamic political liberation movement in
Palestine. That process crystallized in the formation of the Islamic
Resistance Movement, commonly known by its Arabic acronym HAMAS. After
the Israeli assassination of Hamas’s spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed
Yassin in 2004, Meshaal was widely recognized as the political leader of
the movement and he served as head of its political bureau from 1996-2017.
He reiterated that Hamas is prepared to enter into a long-term ceasefire
agreement with Israel, backed by a pledge that Hamas would store its
weapons and commit to end all military operations targeting Israel.
Meshaal also said that Hamas is ready to work closely with the U.S. and
the international community in creating a stable security environment
inside Gaza that will enable the reconstruction of the enclave, prepare
the ground for democratic elections, and create the political conditions
for negotiations addressing the future of a Palestinian state.
“The pragmatic American mindset, and President Trump’s genuine concern
to achieve stability and prevent Gaza from remaining a continual
bleeding wound that worries the world and deeply strikes the human
conscience [can] create an opportunity for stability,” Meshaal said.
“Hamas provides this opportunity with real guarantees and a record of
commitment.”
Hamas remains a popular political actor within Palestine and has served
as the only governing authority in Gaza for two decades—a fact that,
Meshaal said, Trump needs to consider. While Hamas has offered to
relinquish its governance of the enclave in favor of a technocratic
committee of non-partisan Palestinians, Meshaal warned that attempting
to impose a sweeping ban on anyone affiliated with Hamas from
participating in the stabilization and rebuilding of society in Gaza
would be counterproductive.
“Any attempt to establish a non-Palestinian authority inside Gaza is
first unacceptable and second doomed to fail,” Meshaal said. “Any
non-Palestinian authority—meaning foreign authorities or foreign forces
inside Gaza—would be treated by Palestinians as an occupying authority,
as an occupying power. This would automatically create a state of
conflict because Palestinians would not accept it. Why would
Palestinians reject Israeli occupation but accept another form of
foreign occupation?”
During the sit-down interview with Drop Site in Doha last week, Meshaal
argued that the current moment offers an opportunity for the U.S. and
Europe to realign the Western approach to the Middle East. “The
Palestinian people are not against American interests. We are opposed to
those who interfere in our affairs and to those who support our enemy.
But we are ready to open up to America, to Europe, and to the world,” he
said. “What we will not accept is occupation, guardianship, or support
for an occupier. We criticize the United States not because it is the
United States—no—but because it provides Israel, our occupier, with
complete support in all forms. Today, there is an opportunity for
transformation, and I believe it is in the interest of the West to
sponsor a fundamental change in [the approach to] Palestine, just as it
eventually recognized the truth in South Africa and withdrew its support
from that apartheid regime.”
Citing Trump’s embrace of Ahmed Al-Sharaa, the former Al Qaeda operative
turned anti-Assad rebel leader who took power as interim president of
Syria in January, Meshaal said the U.S. should pursue a similar path
with Palestinian political leaders. “Why does the U.S. administration
give Ahmad Al‑Sharaa this opportunity but does not give it to Hamas and
the Palestinian resistance forces? It does not even give it today to
[Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas, who is not accused of
terrorism,” Meshaal said. “It is in the interest of the United States
and Western capitals to pursue positive engagement with Hamas and with
the Palestinian people, because we are the future, and this occupation
will become part of the past.”
A former physics teacher, the 69-year old Meshaal has spent his life
building Hamas. In 1997, a year after Meshaal was named head of Hamas’s
political bureau, the newly-elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu ordered Mossad agents to assassinate him in Amman, Jordan.
Posing as Canadian tourists, the two operatives sprayed poison into his
ear as he exited his car. One of Meshaal’s bodyguards, with the
assistance of Jordanian police, captured the Israeli agents. King
Hussein subsequently threatened to put the spies on trial and
potentially execute them if Meshaal died and to end Jordan’s peace
treaty with Israel. In response, Netanyahu dispatched the head of
Mossad, Danny Yatom, to fly to Amman with the antidote to the poison.
Hussein also secured the release of Yassin, Hamas’s spiritual leader, as
part of the deal.
<https://substack.com/redirect/d4a5e2eb-1a73-447c-9307-6e09375044e3?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, center, the spiritual leader of Hamas, with Khaled
Meshaal, right, and Mousa Abu Marzouk in Amman, Jordan, in 1997. (Photo
by KHALIL MAZRAAWI/AFP via Getty Images)
Meshaal has been widely credited with being one of the architects of
Hamas’s 2006 winning campaign in the Palestinian national elections. In
2012, Meshaal—who had spent his life in exile since 1967—made a
triumphant visit to Palestine where he received a hero’s welcome in the
streets of Gaza. Meshaal’s last act as Hamas’s political leader came on
May 1, 2017 when he presided over the public unveiling of a 42-point
manifesto that stated that Hamas was willing to accept a Palestinian
state along the borders that existed prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
“Without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without
relinquishing any Palestinian rights,” it stated, “Hamas considers the
establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state,
with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967,
with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from
which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.” The
document also sharpened language defining the national liberation
character of armed struggle in Palestine, denounced anti-semitism and
clarified that the enemy of the Palestinian cause was a “colonial
Zionist project.”
While the manifesto did not officially replace Hamas’s 1988 charter, its
language on accepting what would amount to a two-state solution was seen
as a significant overture to the international community. In the ensuing
years, Meshaal continued to represent Hamas internationally, but the
center of leadership within the movement shifted to Yahya Sinwar and
Ismail Haniyeh—both of whom Israel assassinated in the summer of 2024.
Over the course of the past two years of the Gaza genocide, Meshaal
receded from prominence and has seldom spoken or appeared in public.
That dynamic has changed as of late. Within minutes of Israel’s attack
on Hamas’s offices in Doha on September 9
<https://substack.com/redirect/76b31925-3389-4be2-b64d-eb5f58afffe7?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>,
Israeli media outlets and prominent social media accounts were
circulating reports that Meshaal and other Palestinian leaders had been
assassinated. Those rumors were false. While the strike killed the son
of Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya, and four other office staff, it did not
kill any negotiators or political officials.
And now, in the aftermath of Trump’s October Gaza deal, Meshaal has
reemerged as a prominent voice representing Hamas and outlining its
positions on a range of issues. He has denounced Israel’s pervasive
violations of the “ceasefire” agreement and its continued killing of not
just Palestinian civilians, but also members of the armed resistance who
are direct parties to the ceasefire. Since October 10, Israel has killed
nearly 400 Palestinians and wounded more than 1,000 and continues to
block the agreed upon delivery of life essentials.
“Some in the world think the first phase was excellent or fully
implemented—it was not. While the war, in terms of total annihilation,
has stopped, Israeli violations continue,” Meshaal said. “Therefore, our
call as Palestinians, not just Hamas, is that Israel must be held
accountable for all agreements of the first phase before moving quickly
to the second phase. As Hamas committed to the first phase requirements,
Hamas, along with all Palestinian forces, is committed to the
requirements of the second phase through this serious dialogue with the
mediators to reach sound approaches—not as Netanyahu wants, but as
agreed upon with the mediators.”
Meshaal has also outlined Hamas’s position that while it is open to a
“freezing” or storing of its defensive weapons, it will not agree to
disarmament unless it is in the context of establishing a Palestinian
army or security force capable of defending itself from Israeli aggression.
Last week, Netanyahu mentioned Meshaal by name in a speech, saying that
Meshaal’s rejection of Palestinian disarmament would be confronted.
“This mission will be completed either the easy way or the hard way,”
Netanyahu said on December 9. A day later, Meshaal sat for an hourlong
special interview on Al Jazeera Arabic and Hamas widely distributed his
remarks across its official platforms.
Meshaal is the second most popular hypothetical candidate for president
of Palestine, according to a recent poll
<https://substack.com/redirect/9c00cde2-9c41-4a1e-b85c-a4fc39a86a38?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>,
should the Palestinian Authority allow fair elections. Marwan Barghouti,
who has ranked as the most popular potential leader for years, is
currently imprisoned on multiple life terms in Israeli prison. “We hope
that Marwan will be released, that he will have the opportunity to
engage in national struggle and political work, and that he will be a
candidate—this is his natural right,” Meshaal said. “Hamas also has the
right to nominate whomever it chooses, whether Khaled Meshaal or someone
else.”
Abbas, the 90-year-old head of the Palestinian Authority, disagrees. He
issued a “decree law” on November 19 that would ban
<https://substack.com/redirect/ba5e37e4-dd89-43e5-ac60-bbbbad538851?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>Hamas-affiliated
candidates and other pro-resistance Palestinians from running in local
elections. It would also prohibit candidates who do not officially
recognize the Oslo agreements and other deals that are widely seen among
Palestinians as dangerous capitulations. The law, which was pushed by
Western countries but widely denounced in Palestine, is almost certain
to be applied on a national level, according to a source who has seen a
draft version of the proposed decree. The source added that there is
language in the draft that would also prohibit any party with an armed
wing from participating in elections.
“The democracy desired in Palestine, as is unfortunately practiced in
some countries in the region and the world, is that elections should
produce predetermined results acceptable to those holding them. If they
do not, they are canceled. That is not democracy,” said Meshaal. “If you
respect the will of the people, allow them to express it freely at the
ballot box. Today, everyone knows—even after the destruction in Gaza
following two long years of the crime of genocide committed by
Israel—that the Palestinian conscience, awareness, and, I believe, the
Palestinian voter, if given the opportunity, would vote for the resistance.”
*Hamas’s Message to Trump: “Power is responsibility”*
Drop Site News met with Meshaal in person on Thursday in Doha. The
interview was conducted as the Trump administration is pushing forward
with its plan to deploy an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to
Gaza and, in recent days, has been intensifying its pressure on both
European and Islamic nations to commit troops. Several Arab and other
Muslim countries have said they will not join a mission to disarm or
battle Palestinian resistance fighters.
“We should be realistic and nuanced in expecting certain things,” said
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan in an appearance on December 6 at
the Doha Forum in Qatar. “Our first objective in deploying the ISF is to
separate Palestinians from the Israelis.” His remarks were echoed by
Egypt’s foreign minister Badr Abdelatty. “We need to deploy this force
as soon as possible on the ground because one party, which is Israel, is
every day violating the ceasefire and claiming that the other side is
violating, so we need monitors,” Abdelatty said.
Netanyahu has dismissed the notion that an international force would be
willing, or able, to implement a disarmament operation. He suggested
that Israel may eventually launch its own military campaign in the name
of disarming Gaza, an objective its forces failed to achieve during more
than two years of scorched earth war.
Despite clear opposition from its Arab and Muslim allies, the Trump
administration continues to insist the ISF will enter Gaza with a
mission to disarm Hamas. “We specifically put language in there that
said, ‘by all means necessary,’” U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz
told Israel’s Channel 12 on December 11, referring to the UN Security
Council resolution passed on November 17. “Now, obviously that’ll be a
conversation with each country. Those rules of engagement are ongoing.
I’ll tell you this, President Trump has repeatedly said Hamas will
disarm one way or another, the easy way or the hard way.”
Last week, U.S. officials met with their European counterparts in Tel
Aviv to discuss the ISF and reportedly threatened to permit an
indefinite Israeli military presence if EU nations did not offer troops.
“The message was: ‘If you are not ready to go to Gaza, don’t complain
that the IDF stays,’” one European diplomat told Axios
<https://substack.com/redirect/79383a65-3a80-42ec-83ae-636a13ba670a?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>.
While citing substantial objections over the Trump Gaza plan’s vague yet
sweeping nature, Meshaal said that the 20-point document nonetheless
contains key concepts that Hamas, in principle, would accept. Meshaal
cautioned, however, that the common ground between Hamas and Trump is
undermined by attempts to impose foreign rule over Gaza, deploy an
international force to disarm the Palestinian resistance, rather than
serve as peacekeepers, or to enact policies that would enable Israel to
continue its war of annihilation under the guise of a “peace deal.”
He also reiterated that Palestinian negotiators never agreed to
disarmament or any of the terms in the “second phase” of a deal, despite
U.S. and Israeli claims to the contrary. The negotiators from Hamas made
clear privately and publicly in October that they only had a mandate to
negotiate a ceasefire and exchange of captives and that all other issues
must be handled through a consensus process involving all major
Palestinian political factions.
Hamas negotiators had urged the U.S. and regional mediators to approach
the issue of disarmament through technical negotiation, Meshaal said,
and not through edicts that seek to achieve a surrender of the
Palestinian liberation cause that Israel could not win on the
battlefield. During the October negotiations, he noted, Hamas leaders
informed the mediators that sweeping demands for immediate disarmament
would sabotage a broader agreement and undermine Trump’s stated aim of
ending the war.
“We do not want to clash with anyone or confront anyone, but we will not
accept being forcibly disarmed. We told them: if you want results, let
us look for a realistic approach that includes guarantees,” Meshaal
said. “In truth, the major question is not the likelihood of the
Palestinian side’s commitment, the problem lies with the Israeli
side—because by its nature it is treacherous, this is its history.
Second, it is the side that possesses lethal weaponry. The issue is not
how to protect the Israeli side—it is the occupier. The issue is how to
protect the Palestinian people, who are nearly defenseless. The weapons
of the resistance do not mean that we are armed in the conventional
sense, as states are. We are a nearly defenseless people, and we have
sought weapons only to the extent possible in order to protect ourselves
and defend ourselves.”
In launching his sweeping plan for Gaza, Trump was able to marshal the
endorsement of dozens of Arab and Islamic countries, culminating in an
unprecedented UN Security Council resolution that placed a fabricated
stamp of legitimacy on an agenda that many Palestinians see as doing
Israel’s bidding and colonialist in nature.
When asked whether the actions of Arab and Islamic states represented a
betrayal of the Palestinian cause, Meshaal struck a diplomatic tone.
“While they try to play a role in supporting the Palestinian people,
standing by its cause or stopping the war, they also [consider] economic
interests, arms purchases and other strategic considerations,” he said.
“Since the American president is, in fact, a businessman, some countries
are trying to build relationships with him that either serve their
interests or protect them from potential harm, because they fear Trump’s
adventures and sudden moves, as we saw in the past. This situation
undoubtedly weakens strong Arab and Islamic intervention to stop the war.”
Despite the justifiable anger Palestinians may harbor toward Arab and
Islamic states for their lack of intervention against Israel’s genocide,
Meshaal emphasized, it is the U.S. that holds the only leverage over
Israel: “Yes, more is required from Arabs and Muslims, but they are not
the strongest party. As you know, no one in the world is able to compel
Israel—even Europeans do not do so, or cannot do so.”
“Therefore, the responsibility of the United States is a doubled
responsibility, and power is responsibility,” Meshaal said. “President
Trump and the American administration alone are capable of compelling
Israel and Netanyahu to respect the agreements, so they bear this
responsibility before we assign responsibility to any regional or
international party.”
<https://substack.com/redirect/bd1dd234-f91f-41a8-9011-153b64b9c5b4?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>
Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill interviews senior Hamas official Khaled
Meshaal in Doha, Qatar on December 11, 2025.
Interview With Khaled Meshaal
*Jeremy Scahill: *Thank you for taking the time to speak with us.
*Khaled Meshaal: *Thank you very much. I appreciate your keenness to
conduct this interview and for providing this space and platform for me
and for all those who represent the Palestinian cause.
There is no doubt that the unprecedented Israeli crime is a war of
genocide, a repetition of what the Jews were subjected to many decades
ago. They are now committing this Holocaust and this war of genocide
against the Palestinian people and against a small area of only 365
square kilometers—using the most severe and horrific tools of
destruction and killing. We are pleased to address Western public
opinion through your platform so that people hear from us, not about us,
and so that the true nature of this conflict is understood, about which
the world has been misled for many decades. So thank you.
*Jeremy Scahill: *Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mentioned you by
name the other day in regards to the demands for the disarmament of the
Palestinian resistance. Trump’s National Security adviser, Mike Waltz,
said recently that Hamas can disarm the easy way or the hard way. Can
you explain in detail the position right now of the Palestinian
resistance on the issue of disarmament, freezing weapons, and a long
term truce, or /hudna/? Explain the position, right now, in the face of
these demands from Netanyahu and Trump’s administration.
*Khaled Meshaal: *Of course, Netanyahu mentioned my name as if in a
context of surprise, or incitement—he is inciting. Does Netanyahu really
expect the Palestinian people to simply go and give up their weapons?
Netanyahu’s own history, and that of his predecessors among Israeli
leaders, is full of massacres. There is no trust among the Palestinian
people toward the Israelis and the occupation. Israel’s history is one
of massacres, treachery, and the violation of all agreements.
Even Yasser Arafat, who signed the Oslo Accords with them, was killed by
poison. Mahmoud Abbas, who dealt with them with great openness in
continuing Oslo and the peace process, is now left in the headquarters
in Ramallah with no real role. In fact, Netanyahu, [Bezalel] Smotrich,
and [Itamar] Ben-Gvir are now disassembling the Palestinian Authority
and withholding its clearance funds. Not to mention the massacres Israel
has committed throughout its history in Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt,
and even in relatively recent Palestinian history—when the Palestinian
resistance left Beirut, [Ariel] Sharon carried out the Sabra and Shatila
massacres.
Therefore, within Palestinian culture, both historically and in the
present, there is no trust in the Israeli. This is a criminal,
treacherous enemy, and therefore it is only natural for the Palestinian
to hold on to his weapon. This is not an extra weapon or something
marginal for Palestinians—it is directly tied to our existence under
occupation. Any people living in an independent state rely on the state
and its army—the state is theirs, the army is theirs, and it protects
them. And in any society, a citizen engages with their state through
political means. But when you are under occupation, resistance is
natural. Who has not resisted?
Let me tell you a story. In 2007, President [Jimmy] Carter visited me. I
respected him because he conducted himself with high moral standards. He
wrote books supportive of the Palestinian cause. I valued him, and he
gifted me some of his signed books. I remained in contact with him. I
was saddened when he passed away. This man, with his deep humanity,
asked me about my parents—who were living in Damascus at the time in
2007. He asked, “Do you mind if I meet them?” I said no, so he met with
them. My father, spontaneously, said to him: “Mr. Carter, listen—I
fought the British Mandate. I fought the British.” President Carter
replied, with a beautiful spontaneity: “And we fought the British too.”
Meaning that even the Americans fought the colonizer or forms of
colonialism and guardianship over the United States. I am not speaking
[only] about Vietnam, South Africa, the peoples of the world, or Cuba—I
am speaking even about Western societies. You know that from the BBC in
London, the British authorities allowed [Charles] de Gaulle to ignite
the spark of popular resistance by the French people against the
Nazis—against Hitler’s forces. So this is [part of] culture—it is
something natural. Accordingly, what Palestinians do in resistance is
natural, and their holding on to their weapons is natural. It is
essential that this background be clear to everyone.
<https://substack.com/redirect/c76864b6-86f9-4ea9-bb03-11712724ced4?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, right, embraces Meshaal upon their
arrival in Damascus for a meeting on October 19, 2010. Photo: AFP
PHOTO/LOUAI BESHARA via Getty Images.
When Trump’s plan emerged, followed by the Security Council resolution,
and dialogue began between us and the Egyptian, Qatari, and Turkish
mediators, the central matter became, how do we deal with what was
stated in the plan and in the Security Council resolution? Our position
was clear: Do not resort to an approach of disarmament. This would lead
to clashing, violence, and confrontation from the side seeking to impose
it on us. We do not want to clash with anyone or confront anyone, but we
will not accept being forcibly disarmed. We told them, if you want
results, let us look for a realistic approach that includes guarantees.
We outlined several such guarantees. The first guarantee is that these
weapons—Hamas and the resistance forces would preserve and not use,
display or parade them. [The weapons] would be set aside by their own
decision and with full seriousness, especially given that Hamas has a
record of commitment and high credibility.
Second, what has been referred to as international stabilization forces:
we accept them 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 and as Netanyahu wants—for them to clash
with Palestinians and disarm them. Third, we proposed a hudna, and this
is evidence of Hamas’s seriousness and the seriousness of the
Palestinian resistance. A truce of five years, seven years, ten
years—whatever is agreed upon. And a hudna means commitment. All the
periods of calm, as we call them, during the wars of the past twenty
years—all those limited hudnas—Hamas adhered to them, and it was Israel
that violated them. So, a hudna.
We do not want to clash with anyone or confront anyone, but we will not
accept being forcibly disarmed. We told them, if you want results, let
us look for a realistic approach that includes guarantees.
Fourth, we said that the three mediators, along with other Arab and
Islamic countries that have good relations with Hamas, Islamic Jihad,
and the resistance forces, can guarantee the Palestinian side to both
the Israeli and the American sides—that Hamas and the resistance are
committed. In truth, the major question is not the likelihood of the
Palestinian side’s commitment, the problem lies with the Israeli
side—because by its nature it is treacherous, this is its history.
Second, it is the side that possesses lethal weaponry. The issue is not
how to protect the Israeli side—it is the occupier. The issue is how to
protect the Palestinian people, who are nearly defenseless. The weapons
of the resistance do not mean that we are armed in the conventional
sense, as states are. We are a nearly defenseless people, and we have
sought weapons only to the extent possible in order to protect ourselves
and defend ourselves.
I believe these are the correct approaches. I believe—as I stated in my
[Al Jazeera] interview—that the pragmatic American mindset, and
President Trump’s genuine concern to achieve stability and prevent Gaza
from remaining a continual bleeding wound that worries the world and
deeply strikes the human conscience—Western capitals, above all others,
have become exasperated and fed up with what Israel is doing—create an
opportunity for stability. Hamas provides this opportunity with real
guarantees and a record of commitment. This is the approach—any other
[approach] is impractical. It is enough for me to say it is
impractical—not just unacceptable from our side.
*Jeremy Scahill: *I watched your recent interview with Al Jazeera Arabic
and you mentioned the experience of Paul Bremer, who George W. Bush
installed as the “viceroy” in Iraq during the 2003 invasion. And when
the Americans implemented de-Ba’athification—where they criminalized the
Ba’ath party of Saddam Hussein—they eliminated huge numbers of not only
the professional military, but also civil society, government
bureaucrats, and technocrats. They broke civil society because of
de-Ba’athification. It seems to me that the Americans may eventually
realize that Hamas is not only a resistance movement, but was a
government and built civil infrastructure and civilian security forces.
If they recreate a de-Ba’athification policy with Hamas and they try to
remove anyone affiliated with Hamas, what would the consequences be on a
security level? Because the idea is they’re going to send in a
Palestinian police force—trained by the Egyptians, maybe. But the
reality is that Hamas has been the security internally in Gaza for two
decades. What would the consequences be if the Americans tried to adopt
a de-Ba’athification approach to Hamas in Gaza?
*Khaled Meshaal: *From what I’ve been following in American statements,
after the 2003 Iraq invasion, there have been some American
reassessments about what they did in Iraq—that one of the mistakes was
not just dismantling the regime. They realized that by dismantling the
Iraqi state and its institutions, including the Iraqi army, they created
chaos. This allowed groups like ISIS and forces the U.S. feared to
emerge and it provided a pretext for prolonging the war in Iraq and the
region. Therefore, I believe the American administration under President
Trump should not repeat the same mistake—this is a relatively recent
experience. If America seeks stability in the region, it must not make
things worse or add fuel to the fire, which would further cause instability.
Furthermore, Hamas is not just a military organization or armed group—it
is a resistance movement with a military dimension, but it is also a
civil society movement. It is deeply rooted in the Palestinian people
and is part of the fabric of Palestinian society. Its members are
present across all aspects of Palestinian life. For two decades, Hamas
has governed society efficiently, learning from past mistakes and
gaining experience, and there was stability. The people of Gaza know
that before Hamas ruled Gaza, there was lawlessness—a certain degree of
chaos from rogue groups. Hamas managed this situation with high
efficiency. Therefore, Hamas has a successful track record in
maintaining security in the country and providing public safety. It has
a successful experience in governing society, the government and
providing for people’s needs, despite an unjust siege that lasted
throughout this period.
Consequently, any attempt—and here I’m speaking about the principle, not
just the method—to establish a non-Palestinian authority inside Gaza is
first unacceptable and second doomed to fail. That’s why I said the
Bremer experience is not acceptable. Looking back at Palestinian history
a hundred years ago, after World War I in the early 1920s, there was the
British Mandate. Practically, this Mandate was colonial, and Palestinian
revolts in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s fought against it. The Mandate
was unjust: it seized rights it did not possess, and it served as cover
for the Zionist gangs that infiltrated Palestine and established Israel
in 1948. Therefore, from a practical perspective, the Mandate experience
and legacy is extremely negative, and in principle, is unacceptable. In
principle, a mandate and guardianship are unacceptable.
As for the consequences you asked about, if such a scenario were to
occur, they would certainly be serious. This would not be a
confrontation with Hamas alone; it would be a confrontation with
[Palestinian] society. I have said that any non-Palestinian
authority—meaning foreign authorities or foreign forces inside
Gaza—would be treated by Palestinians as an occupying authority, as an
occupying power. This would automatically create a state of conflict
because Palestinians would not accept it. Why would Palestinians reject
Israeli occupation but accept another form of foreign occupation? That
is unacceptable.
That is why I said that the Palestinian people are the ones who govern
themselves, who make their own decisions, and who manage [their
affairs]. Then Hamas took a step meant to shorten the path: it stepped
away from administration—actually relinquished governance, not just in
slogans—and left it to mediators such as Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, in a
Palestinian dialogue with various factions, to agree on forming a
technocratic administration. This is what we have done for more than a
year. What delayed this [process] is that the [Palestinian] Authority in
Ramallah was not enthusiastic about it, even though we said that the
reference authority of this administration would be the authority of
Ramallah so that the Palestinian system between Gaza and the West Bank
could be unified. Unfortunately, it stalled. Three weeks ago, this idea
was finalized: 40 respectable Palestinian figures, all independent
technocrats, were proposed, and eight were selected. The original plan
was for this step to be implemented quickly and efficiently, but there
was a delay because everyone was waiting to see what Israel would do in
the second phase and whether the United States would force Israel to
enter that second phase. President Trump’s recent statements indicate
that the process would begin early next year, but Israel is the one
causing the delay.
For your information and for the information of American viewers and
followers, the first phase has not met its requirements. Israel has
violated the requirements or conditions of the first phase: in relief,
shelter, the entry of tents and caravans, food and medical aid, hospital
rehabilitation, and opening the Rafah crossing in both directions—as
stipulated in the Trump plan and the Security Council resolution. Yet
Israel only mentions the remaining Israeli bodies—only one left. Hamas
and the Palestinian resistance committed to everything, while Israel
violated many [obligations]. This is in addition to killings under
various pretexts. Even the issue of Hamas fighters in Rafah was a
solvable problem, and the U.S. offered an initiative, but it was
thwarted by Netanyahu. We also heard how Trump criticized Netanyahu,
saying, “Why did you make this an ongoing crisis?”
Furthermore, the “yellow line,” which initially allowed Israel to
control about 53% of Gaza—[Israel] is moving this line—has now shifted
closer to 60% of the Gaza Strip. So some in the world think the first
phase was excellent or fully implemented—it was not. While the war, in
terms of total annihilation, has stopped, Israeli violations continue.
Therefore, our call as Palestinians, not just Hamas, is that Israel must
be held accountable for all agreements of the first phase before moving
quickly to the second phase. As Hamas committed to the first phase
requirements, Hamas, along with all Palestinian forces, is committed to
the requirements of the second phase through this serious dialogue with
the mediators to reach sound approaches—not as Netanyahu wants, but as
agreed upon with the mediators. And I believe that the American side, as
I said, in its pursuit of stability and its concern for results more
than the ways Israel is trying to incite the U.S.—the American
administration and the international community will understand the
approaches that we can develop together with the mediators.
*Jeremy Scahill: *How, though, are you going to navigate the role of
Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority? He’s 90 years old. The last
time he was elected was 2005. The Palestinian Authority was established
in 1994 with a five year mandate. The Americans also punished Abbas—they
banned him from attending the United Nations general assembly in New
York. But also they want to use him for a sort of legitimacy stamp to
say, “Ah, see, Palestinians agree with this.” Recently Abbas pushed a
decree law about elections—the local elections—that would mean Hamas
can’t run in the election. Even Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian
political leader and former candidate for president who does not control
any armed faction, could not run in the election. But other resistance
leaders have told me that working with the PA right now in Gaza is the
least bad option because at least it’s Palestinian. But, given the
history, this may not really strike a lot of Palestinians as a
convincing answer. What is your position on how to navigate the way the
Americans want to use the PA and the broader struggle by Hamas and other
movements to preserve the Palestinian cause for an independent state?
*Khaled Meshaal: *First, democracy is a right of the Palestinian people.
Elections and building the Palestinian political system on democratic
foundations are a right of the Palestinian people, not a favor from
anyone in the world—not a gift we wait for from anyone. On the other
hand, the slogans raised by the United States and Western capitals about
democratizing the region, or their support for a democratic system—they
do practice it in their own countries, no doubt about that—they must
respect the choice of peoples to exercise this democratic right. The
Palestinian people have a culture and a history of political engagement.
Just as they excelled in the struggle, they excel in politics. They have
formed parties since the days of the British Mandate. They have culture,
free press, education, and universities. The Palestinian people are
vibrant, educated, and well-versed in civilization. Palestine itself is
the land of civilization and of the Prophets—it has a long history. It
also has a history of peaceful coexistence among its different
components and religious communities. Therefore, the Palestinian people
do not need anyone to teach them the culture of democracy. They simply
need others not to interfere with or violate this right of democracy.
The democracy desired in Palestine, as is unfortunately practiced in
some countries in the region and the world, is that elections should
produce predetermined results acceptable to those holding them. If they
do not, they are canceled. That is not democracy.
Now, there was the Palestinian Authority, as you mentioned,
[established] in 1994. In 2006, elections were held, and Hamas
participated for the first time. Hamas won the elections and formed a
government in 2006 and extended offers to all Palestinian partners.
However, the Authority in Ramallah pressured these factions not to
participate. Consequently, Hamas was forced to form the government alone
with some independent figures. This was not their choice but imposed on
them because Ramallah incited the participating factions. Until clashes
occurred and some members of the Palestinian security apparatus at that
time attempted a coup against the legitimate government led by Mr.
Ismail Haniyeh—Brother Abu Al-Ubid was the Prime Minister at the time,
who later became a martyr, as you know, more than a year ago. Then the
Mecca Agreement of February 2007 was reached, leading to a national
unity government in which Fatah and all the factions participated.
By June 2007, as a result of an attempt by remnants of the security
apparatus to overthrow this government, clashes occurred, and stability
was imposed in Gaza under the leadership of Hamas. Some claimed that
Hamas had ousted the others, which is not true. I visited an Arab leader
at the time, and he asked me, “Brother Abu al-Waleed, how is it that you
fought Fatah and the others in 2007?” I replied, “We did not fight
anyone. We were not opposing or fighting the authority—we were the
authority. When someone rebels against the law and the authority, what
should we do? Suppose, Mr. President, someone from a party in your own
country came and fought you—what would you do? Retaliate? Stop them? Or
just watch and smile?” The president smiled. So, Hamas did not stage a
coup against anyone because it was the authority. Ismail Haniyeh [of
Hamas] was the Prime Minister of the national unity government, and
[Fatah politician] Azzam al-Ahmad was his deputy.
So, Hamas is committed to democracy, committed to the law, and committed
to making the democratic experiment succeed. Since that time, the
situation has changed. What is the main reason for this? Many Western
powers—and unfortunately, some regional powers in the area—were not
satisfied with the results of the 2006 elections and did not give Hamas
and the Palestinian society the opportunity to make this experiment
succeed. As a result, a coup was attempted against it through security
and military conspiracies. Vanity Fair at the time published a detailed
report
<https://substack.com/redirect/7616c159-e963-4b13-8af6-a8ea157618e0?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>about
this—it is a Western magazine, as you know. Gaza was also subjected to
an economic blockade. The democratic experiment was therefore fought
against economically and targeted security-wise through attempts to
overthrow it. The security coup did not succeed, but there is no doubt
that the blockade harmed the experiment and made life in Gaza abnormal.
So, this democratic experiment was perhaps targeted for failure from the
very beginning, but the will of our people enabled Hamas to continue.
After that, we were called to hold elections several times, but what
made this fail was President Mahmoud Abbas. We agreed several times—for
example, in 2011, we agreed to rebuild the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) on new democratic foundations. That is, there are
elections for the Palestinian Authority—which, as you know, operates in
Gaza and the West Bank. The PLO is the political national reference for
the Palestinian people, inside and outside [the country]. We agreed to
rebuild the organization and took a transitional step by forming a
temporary leadership framework, which met for only two sessions in Cairo
that I attended, and then they did nothing. President Mahmoud Abbas, on
his own initiative, called for municipal elections several times and
then canceled them. We agreed in, I think, 2020 or 2021, on
elections—they were canceled again. I asked one of the leaders in
Ramallah, “Why were the elections canceled?” Of course, this was
unofficial, and he said, “In short, because we are not confident in the
results.”
Therefore, the democracy desired in Palestine, as is unfortunately
practiced in some countries in the region and the world, is that
elections should produce predetermined results acceptable to those
holding them. If they do not, they are canceled. That is not democracy.
If you respect the will of the people, allow them to express it freely
at the ballot box. Today, everyone knows—even after the destruction in
Gaza following two long years of the crime of genocide committed by
Israel—that the Palestinian conscience, awareness, and, I believe, the
Palestinian voter, if given the opportunity, would vote for the
resistance They know that the resistance reflects their conscience and
is a natural response to the occupation, and that the real problem lies
with the Israeli occupation. Therefore, the Palestinian Authority has
become weak because, on one hand, it no longer renews its legitimacy
before its people. Secondly, it has been reduced to weak roles,
especially security coordination with Israel. It has essentially become
just a stamp or signature required to approve steps taken by the
Israelis or the Americans. And you know—you, being part of American and
Western society—that the West does not respect the weak, even if they
are its followers. The world respects the strong. Hamas is strong,
credible, and open to dealing with the entire world.
So today, notice in the Trump plan and the Security Council
resolution—they, of course, want to end Hamas while at the same time
rejecting any role for the Palestinian Authority (PA). Europeans
advocate for a role for the PA, but the U.S. administration does not
accept it, and Israel does not accept it. That is why we have called for
Palestinian national unity, so that we are strong together and can
impose our will on everyone. Hamas believes in organizing the
Palestinian system around two principles: elections and a return to the
ballot box, and second, partnership, meaning we do not exclude anyone. I
have said this: in normal circumstances, as in the West, the party that
wins the majority governs, and the rest are in the opposition or form a
shadow government. But in our country, we need the energy of everyone.
We hold elections, and after the elections we form a formula of national
partnership across all institutions of the Palestinian political system
to benefit from everyone’s efforts.
This is what Hamas proposes: it does not assert itself solely based on
its popularity or majority, nor because it is the primary force on the
ground. It seeks to include everyone. Hamas wants democracy because
Hamas is also part of Palestinian society. It has political experience
and a practical, civil presence within its community in all its aspects.
<https://substack.com/redirect/6d7b733a-00e3-4fbc-bb61-bacd43af16bf?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>
Khaled Meshaal, right, with Ismail Haniyeh at a rally to mark the 25th
anniversary of the founding of Hamas in Gaza on December 8, 2012. Photo:
MAHMUD HAMS/AFP via Getty Images.
*Jeremy Scahill: *In the most recent polls
<https://substack.com/redirect/9c00cde2-9c41-4a1e-b85c-a4fc39a86a38?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>I’ve
read, Hamas is the number one most popular political party in Palestine.
You are the most popular candidate for president with the exception of
imprisoned leader Marwan Barghouti. But in terms of men who are not in
prison right now, you’re the leading candidate. It seems like Europe and
America do not want Hamas to be able to participate in elections. Given
the popularity of Hamas and your popularity as a political leader
according to some Palestinian polls, would you consider running for
either president or to be head of the government as prime minister? And
how would you do that if they make a law saying you can’t?
*Khaled Meshaal: *First of all, our dear brother Marwan Barghouti—who is
in prison, and whom we hope will be released—we have fought for his
release, as well as for [the release of] Brother Ahmad Saadat, the
Secretary General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
However, it is Israel that remains intransigent. And I am not revealing
a secret when I say that some Palestinian parties were not enthusiastic
about Marwan Barghouti’s release from prison—his wife knows this. Hamas,
for its part, was keen, but due to Israeli intransigence and the lack of
sufficient American pressure on Israel during the recent negotiations,
we were unable to secure the release of Ahmad Saadat, Marwan Barghouti,
Abbas al‑Sayyed of Hamas, Ibrahim Hamed, Abdullah Barghouti, Hassan
Salameh, Arman, and many other Palestinian leaders. This is, of course,
deeply regrettable for us. But this reflects our commitment to all the
prisoners of our people—whether from Hamas, Fatah, or the Popular Front.
We hope that Marwan will be released, that he will have the opportunity
to engage in national struggle and political work, and that he will be a
candidate—this is his natural right. Hamas also has the right to
nominate whomever it chooses, whether Khaled Meshaal or someone else.
That is a decision for the movement to make at the appropriate time.
Just as Hamas courageously participated in the 2006 elections, it is
capable of doing so again. However, the doors are closed—not only by
Israel and the U.S. administration, signaling that they would reject any
election results—but, unfortunately, also by the Authority in Ramallah,
which does not allow elections unless it can guarantee [the outcome].
They want elections that are carefully calibrated and whose results they
feel assured about.
We understand and firmly believe that there is no solution—just as there
is no solution to dealing with the occupation except for it to leave our
land, whether through resistance or otherwise. Incidentally, in my
meetings with regional leaders and Western leaders, I have told them
clearly: our demand as Palestinians is the withdrawal of the occupation
from Palestine.
*Jeremy Scahill: *Have you personally had any discussions—you,
yourself—with EU leaders recently, with European leaders directly?
*Khaled Meshaal: *No, we did meet with officials from the European
Union, but not at the level of heads of state within the EU—we met with
ministers. For a period, we were open—there was openness toward us from
Norway and Switzerland. We met with ministers from those countries. We
met with officials from countries, some of these meetings were public,
and others were private. Many of the meetings we held were private. We
welcome any such meetings.
The main point is this: I told one of these leaders that the Palestinian
people’s demand is very simple—the end of the occupation. It is our
natural right. Our people do not accept living under occupation. How do
we get rid of the occupation? There are two options: either we resist
it, which is our natural right under international law, or others help
us to get rid of it—just as the Americans have helped in the past to
remove occupiers from certain countries. We said that we prefer the
easier option. But as long as the international community does not act
fairly toward us—while the Americans and Europeans have intervened in
some cases, such as Kosovo, Bosnia, elsewhere, and Iraq, and at a
certain point lifted their support from the apartheid regime in South
Africa—to this day the international community and its major powers have
not intervened to do us justice or to compel Israel to withdraw, at the
very least in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions,
which the West respects, from the West Bank and Gaza. They have not done so.
Therefore, when the world fails to help you, you have no choice but to
resist the occupier until you force it to withdraw. History—Palestinian
history and the history of the region—shows that there has never been a
case in which an occupier withdrew from land without pressure. This was
[true] during the era of British, French, and Italian colonialism in the
region, and it has been [true] in our experience with the Israeli
occupation since 1948. That is our demand in the context of resistance.
In the political realm as well, the solution we believe in is
democracy—but on the condition that it is genuine democracy, not one
imposed on us in the manner preferred by Israel or the United States,
where the results are predetermined. As the Palestinian people, we are
capable of managing our own political system, holding free and fair
elections, and governing ourselves. The outcome of such elections would
be a strong, respected Palestinian leadership that represents the
Palestinian people in managing both the struggle on the ground and the
political battle.
How do we get rid of the occupation? There are two options: either we
resist it, which is our natural right under international law, or others
help us to get rid of it—just as the Americans have helped in the past
to remove occupiers from certain countries. We said that we prefer the
easier option.
*Jeremy Scahill: *Part of why I’m asking is because some European
leaders and political officers have suggested Hamas could reform itself
and take a more moderate position. And it seems like they understand
that Hamas represents a large percentage of the Palestinian people. But
there’s going to be a lot of pressure on you and other leaders to make
concessions to Western countries. And given your career spent in this
movement, I’m curious how you navigate this. Because Hamas has been
called terrorists and this is in the mind of so many leaders in the U.S.
and in Europe. But Hamas is also a popular movement. It’s also a
resistance movement. So, how do you navigate this? I’m sure European
leaders—the European leaders know you well. And so I’m wondering what
your position is, how you deal with this pressure while staying loyal to
the overarching principles of Hamas?
*Khaled Meshaal: *There is no doubt that how you present yourself under
an initial or preemptive accusation—that you are a terrorist
organization and that you are judged by Israel’s standards for
classifying groups—[is difficult]. If, however, the U.S. administration
and Western capitals applied the same Western standards to Hamas and the
Palestinian resistance factions, they would classify them as national
liberation movements—just as, for example, the Americans did 200 years
ago, the French during World War II, and as all the peoples of the world
have done. I am certain of this. Just like how they treated Mandela:
once considered a terrorist and then he became a great man to them, and
indeed he was a great man. If Western standards on democracy, human
rights, and opposition to occupation under international law were
applied, the West in its various capitals would see Hamas and the
Palestinian resistance forces as national liberation movements. Yasser
Arafat was considered a terrorist by them and later became a man of peace.
Unfortunately, one of the problems with the U.S. administration is that
it prioritizes Israel’s interests more than the United States’ own
interests. Even Trump’s people—MAGA—came to realize that Israel is a
burden on them, restricting and harming U.S. interests. I am simply
calling on the American people and the U.S. administration to judge
based on America’s interests, not Israel’s. If they look at us even for
a moment in a fair and impartial way, they will see that the Palestinian
people are oppressed under occupation, and they have the right to
resist—unless America steps in and forces Israel to withdraw, in which
case we would thank America. But if they do not do so, then they should
leave us to resist.
<https://substack.com/redirect/42812e75-7b30-45ff-9be4-08905e472617?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, U.S. President Donald Trump,
and Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim ben Hamad al-Thani at the Gaza summit in
Sharm El-Sheikh on October 13, 2025. Photo: EVAN VUCCI/POOL/AFP via
Getty Images.
Now, what is the other standard for Hamas? The philosophy of resistance
is to liberate [one’s land], which is consistent with international law
and the historical Western approach to occupiers. Regarding
structure—the organizational framework of any movement—what more could
they ask of Hamas in terms of its democratic structure? Hamas elects its
president and leadership every four years. Hamas is democratic to its
core, perhaps more so than some Western parties and forces. Money is not
used in our [elections] as it is in Western elections. Hamas is
inherently democratic and accepts democracy with others, as shown in the
2006 elections, municipal elections, and university and union elections.
Hamas practices [democracy] and abides by the results. Hamas is also a
movement rooted in society and provides services to the Palestinian
community. It has a civil body—it is a resistance movement, not a
[purely] military organization. It is not a military group. It is a
social movement that engages with all segments of society and has
established many institutions, including universities and hospitals and
other facilities that serve the Palestinian community.
So, Hamas is a movement that cannot be described as terrorist, because
it is part of the fabric of Palestinian society. Accordingly, it should
be dealt with on that basis. You can interview anyone who has met with
Hamas’s leadership among Western figures. As I mentioned to you, for
example, President Carter met with us. Some former U.S. ambassadors met
with us through the Human Dialogue initiative in Switzerland. Others
have met with us as well. All of them came away with impressions very
different from the stereotypical image they had before meeting Hamas’s
leadership. They discovered that Hamas’s leaders are open, democratic,
and willing to engage [in dialogue]. Yes, they defend their national
project and their right to independence and to ending the occupation,
but they are also politically open to everyone. Therefore, this unfair,
stereotypical labeling is exhausting and burdensome for us because it
erects barriers between us and others.
It is in the interest of the United States and Western capitals to
pursue positive engagement with Hamas and with the Palestinian people,
because we are the future, and this occupation will become part of the past.
Let me give you an example: Ahmad Al‑Sharaa, who was formerly known as
Al‑Jolani, was once accused by the Americans of being affiliated with
Al‑Qaeda or Al‑Nusra, and suddenly he became acceptable. We are pleased
that he is accepted, because in the end he is a son of Syria. He has an
experience that I cannot judge, but later he fought for Syria’s freedom
and led his people, together with the broader Syrian forces, to rid
themselves of tyranny. That is a Syrian matter and their right. Why does
the U.S. administration give Ahmad Al‑Sharaa this opportunity but does
not give it to Hamas and the Palestinian resistance forces? It does not
even give it today to [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas,
who is not accused of terrorism. There is a clear double standard. I
believe—and I have said this repeatedly, and I say it to you now through
your platform—that the Palestinian people will prevail and will rid
themselves of the occupation, and Israel’s fate will not be different
from that of the apartheid regime in South Africa. It is in the interest
of the United States and Western capitals to pursue positive engagement
with Hamas and with the Palestinian people, because we are the future,
and this occupation will become part of the past.
*Jeremy Scahill: *Regarding Ahmed Al Sharaa, I must say, when he took
power, the Israelis bombed nearly all of the conventional military
capacity of Syria. They are pressuring him to sign a normalization
agreement with Israel. The Israelis have been able to occupy more and
more Syrian territory. Yes, it’s an interesting example because of his
history with Al Qaeda and Nusra. However, the demand in front of the
Palestinians now from Europe is a disarmed Palestinian state,
demilitarized—no army, no weapons. This is what they are saying—two
state solution. On the other side is Israel. It’s not just Netanyahu—a
large percentage of Israelis clearly want all of you gone or dead, as
indicated by public polls. So you’re facing a situation where the
support for Palestinians is unprecedented, huge support in the world.
But the official demand from the chambers of Western power is no guns,
no army, no self defense—essentially, you must always be under the fist
of Israel. That’s also the emerging reality in Syria. That’s what
they’re doing to the Syrians. So it’s a difficult situation you’re in.
*Khaled Meshaal: *That is true. And why? What is the reason behind all
these abnormal situations? It is Israel. When the United States or
Western capitals deal with other countries, they may not be right or
fair, but they behave in a relatively reasonable manner—except in any
case where Israel is involved. At that point, the West and the United
States lose sight of themselves and align with Israel’s demands—demands
of an occupier seeking dominance over the region. That is our problem today.
In Palestine, they first talk about a state. And I believe that, so far,
the issue of a state remains a slogan—there is no real seriousness. Yes,
a conference was held under the sponsorship of Saudi Arabia and France,
and 159 countries recognized the Palestinian state, but this still
remains at the level of symbolism. There has been no international will
formed to force Israel to withdraw so that a state can actually
exist—because there is no state without withdrawal. The Palestinian
Authority declared the state many years ago, but it is a state in the
air. We are not seeking psychological satisfaction from symbolic
statehood, we are seeking freedom, independence, to live without
occupation, and to build our state. Today, this opportunity is not
available to the Palestinians. If the world does not want to help us
achieve this, then it should allow us to resist and should not label our
resistance as terrorism.
Furthermore, what does it even mean—a state without weapons? Of course,
if a state is granted as a gift from others—if that were even to
happen—it would come with conditions, just as conditions were imposed on
the [Palestinian] Authority. The problem is that any achievement based
on agreements under others’ conditions, will restrict you. That is why
the Palestinian Authority has been constrained security-wise,
politically, and economically. We are seeking a Palestinian authority—or
more precisely, a Palestinian state—after the end of the occupation. We
were not satisfied with having an authority under occupation through
Oslo. It proved to be a failed authority because it was constrained, and
at any moment [Israel] could intervene. Today there is a complete
violation of the Authority: the Israeli army can enter Ramallah and Area
A at any time, and it now seeks to restore administration even over Area
B, contrary to Oslo, and may even reassert control over Area A as well.
[Israel] intervenes whenever it wishes. Any Palestinian minister within
the Authority is stopped at checkpoints—even Mahmoud Abbas cannot move
without their permission. What kind of authority is this? It is an
authority without sovereignty, without even the most basic level of
respect or independent decision-making.
Therefore, for us, the proper course is that a state should be
established only after the occupation ends. The first step toward
statehood is not available here. That is why the Palestinian people do
not wait for others. They know that the West—led by the United
States—acts with absolute bias whenever Israel is part of the picture.
Therefore, we decide to rid ourselves of the occupation and to create
our independence just as other peoples have done. Second, why am I being
asked to be disarmed? Guaranteed by whom? Who gives anyone the right to
demand a state without [weapons]? A state itself decides—just as some
countries choose to be non-aligned or without military capabilities.
That is their decision, it is not imposed on them. We are like any other
country in the world: we end the occupation, establish our state, build
it democratically, and it will have its own army like any other state in
the world. In short, there is a huge difference between waiting for
others to deliver your national rights and demands—which I consider
futile and detached from reality—and taking it upon yourself to achieve
your identity, your rights, and your national aspirations. When you do
that, those who reject you today will accept you tomorrow. We know the
Western world well: it tries to block you, but once you prove your
merit, it will deal with you. This is what we are striving for.
We say to the American people—over the past two years—we have deeply
appreciated the engagement we have seen in American society: in
universities, [including] the most prestigious ones, across different
U.S. cities, among American elites, and among the new generation of
Americans, including Jewish Americans who have shown solidarity with
Palestine. Fifty-one percent of young Americans aged 18 to 24 support
the Palestinian cause—indeed, support Hamas and the resistance. [Note:
The poll, conducted by Harvard/Harris in December 2023, asked if the
October 7 attacks “can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians?”]
This is a significant shift, and we hope that the American human
conscience will awaken and realize that Israel is a burden on [the
United States], and that the Palestinian people are not against American
interests. We are opposed to those who interfere in our affairs and to
those who support our enemy. But we are ready to open up to America, to
Europe, and to the world to build cultural and civilizational exchange,
just as this region has historically been a cradle of civilizations, and
to manage mutual interests. What we will not accept is occupation,
guardianship, or support for an occupier. We criticize the United States
not because it is the United States—no—but because it provides Israel,
our occupier, with complete support in all forms. Today, there is an
opportunity for transformation, and I believe it is in the interest of
the West to sponsor a fundamental change in [the approach to] Palestine,
just as it eventually recognized the truth in South Africa and withdrew
its support from that apartheid regime.
*Jeremy Scahill: *Trump of course is a businessman. And he’s not just
representing America as the president, he’s also preparing the path for
business deals for his family. Many Arab countries are making big deals
with Trump and they are trying to become very close friends of Trump.
And in this deal on Gaza—the 20 point plan—Arab countries and Islamic
countries put their stamp on it. And I heard you on Al Jazeera give
credit to some of these countries—they stopped the big genocide by
agreeing to it, but still Palestinians are killed every day. How do you
not feel that this is one of the biggest betrayals of the Palestinian
people by Arab and Islamic countries by working with Trump in this way?
*Khaled Meshaal: *Look, as Palestinians, we deal with our Arab and
Islamic nation on two levels: one based on brotherhood—on the fact that
we are one nation with a shared destiny and mutual rights—and another
based on the realities of politics. As a leader, I have to balance both.
Measured by the standard of brotherhood and shared destiny—that we are
one nation and that the Palestinian cause has always been, and remains,
the central cause of the [Arab and Islamic] nation—there is no doubt
that the responsibility of the nation is great. Governments, leaders,
and rulers within the nation should not have allowed this criminal war,
this war of total genocide, to continue for two full years. That is why
we called on many leaders of the nation, from the very first weeks and
months, to move decisively and tell the Americans and the West:
enough—this war must stop. There was undoubtedly some shortcoming, and
the efforts fell short of what we had hoped for.
At the same time, we are aware of Arab and Islamic weakness. We know
that the Arab position is not unified—there are disagreements,
unfortunately, that have grown over a long period. There is no
agreed-upon Arab or Islamic leadership that can command, reject, and
coordinate collective action—there is fragmentation and disarray.
Moreover, many states are preoccupied with their own priorities and
interests with the United States and Europe. So while they try to play a
role in supporting the Palestinian people, standing by its cause or
stopping the war, they also [consider] economic interests, arms
purchases and other strategic considerations. And since the American
president is, in fact, a businessman, some countries are trying to build
relationships with him that either serve their interests or protect them
from potential harm, because they fear Trump’s adventures and sudden
moves, as we saw in the past.
This situation undoubtedly weakens strong Arab and Islamic intervention
to stop the war, and it is something we have criticized. But this does
not negate the positive steps I mentioned in the interview—and I was
sincere about them. For example, Egypt’s rejection of the displacement
of our people from Gaza is a genuine Egyptian position because it also
aligns with Egypt’s interest and its national security. Similarly,
Jordan has feared—and continues to fear—the policies of Netanyahu,
Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich aimed at annexing the West Bank, displacing its
population, expanding settlements, destruction, seizing large areas of
land, and violating Al-Aqsa Mosque, over which Jordan has a religious
custodianship. These [policies] alarm Jordan deeply. Therefore, Jordan’s
rejection of displacement from the West Bank is also a genuine
position—it is not only about Jordanian security, but about the very
existence of the Jordanian state. There are concerns for the future. We
appreciate the positions taken by Egypt and Jordan. We also appreciate
the significant positions taken by Qatar, despite the fact that it is
not a neighboring country and is distant—it took strong and commendable
positions. The same is true of Turkey. And many Arab countries as well,
including Saudi Arabia, which was asked to normalize relations with
Israel, establish ties and join the Abraham Accords. [Saudi Arabia] set
four conditions: three related to Saudi Arabia, and one tied to ending
the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state.
There are Arab and Islamic positions that I do not want to constrain [to
a list]—across our region there have been commendable stances. However,
they have not been sufficient given the responsibility of the [Arab and
Islamic] nation toward Palestine and in light of the scale of the crime
committed over two full years in the Gaza Strip. Our policy in Hamas is
to thank the efforts that have been made, while [at the same time]
calling for more. Even countries that supported us, such as Iran, and
Hezbollah, which entered the confrontation in support of Gaza, are
appreciated by us. There have been political efforts, military efforts,
humanitarian relief and support inside Palestine, and popular
mobilization in the Arab and Islamic streets, just as there has been in
Western societies—all of this is valued. But did the international
community succeed? Did the Arab and Islamic nation and its leadership
succeed in stopping the crime at an early stage? The answer is no, they
did not. The massacre and the war of genocide continued for two full
years. That was undoubtedly extremely painful for us—yet, praise be to God.
When eight Arab and Islamic leaders went recently to New York last
September and exerted pressure on the administration—they met with
President Trump. This led to what became known as the Trump plan which
was not sufficiently fair and contained serious gaps, but we considered
it an important step toward stopping the war. That is why we dealt with
it positively, intelligently, and with flexibility, which helped bring
the war to a halt. Even this plan, however, is being violated by Israel.
>From time to time, we hear statements from President Trump and some
members of his administration criticizing Israel, but the criticism is
mild. Meanwhile, Hamas—which has adhered to the agreement—continues to
face accusations and harsh rhetoric from time to time. This is something
that must be overcome.
In short, on this point: yes, more is required from Arabs and Muslims,
but they are not the strongest party. As you know, no one in the world
is able to compel Israel—even Europeans do not do so, or cannot do so.
Therefore, the responsibility of the United States is a doubled
responsibility, and power is responsibility. President Trump and the
American administration alone are capable of compelling Israel and
Netanyahu to respect the agreements, so they bear this responsibility
before we assign responsibility to any regional or international party.
<https://substack.com/redirect/27df57c7-81f8-4cc4-afbf-cbaf51c10ab2?j=eyJ1IjoibHZwcGIifQ.9RIwWbE6EVIB7Jy8lfazxZKfps8R18neRGMKwOiqnRM>
Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh watch a video feed in Gaza of the speech
by Khaled Meshaal announcing the revised political platform of Hamas on
May 1, 2017. Photo: MAHMUD HAMS/AFP via Getty Images.
*Jeremy Scahill: *Hamas, in essence, updated its charter in 2017 and the
official position on what the international community, particularly the
U.S. and EU, calls the “two state solution” is that Hamas, if it’s the
democratic will of the Palestinian people to establish a state along the
pre-1967 war borders, would not object to it and would accept the
democratic will of the Palestinian people. But you have an expansion of
settlers in the West Bank. You have a genocidal mentality in Israeli
society. Is there really a point anymore to Palestinians discussing a
two state solution? Is there any relevance to this anymore in your view?
*Khaled Meshaal: *Look, what we announced in 2017 in the political
charter was not, at that moment, a new position regarding Hamas’s
behavior or political stances—Hamas had already developed and maintained
these political positions since it participated in elections, even
before that. For more than twenty-five years, Hamas has built a
political philosophy and a system of political positions and ideas,
developing them through its internal democratic structure, through
dialogues with other Palestinian factions, and also with Arab and
Islamic countries through discussions. This was to form a political
program that aligns with its principles and constants, but also opens
horizons to achieve gains on one hand, and importantly, provides a
common ground for Palestinian-Palestinian unity and engagement with the
official Arab position.
We wanted—especially after winning the elections—to create a joint
political program where we could meet with Fatah and other factions, and
also have a program with shared points with the official Arab stance, as
a way to facilitate matters. But we understood that Israel would not
allow this. What is called the “two-state solution” will not be
permitted [by Israel]. I believe that the idea of a two-state solution
is a beautiful slogan presented internationally and regionally, but
Israel will not allow it because the West Bank is, for Israel, the heart
of the Zionist project. Israel has historically referred to it as Judea
and Samaria.
What happened in Gaza in 2005, with the Israeli withdrawal, was an
exception forced upon Sharon at the time because Gaza had become a
burden for them. Gaza is a limited area, and Israeli policy is fine with
relinquishing small areas, especially if they have a dense population
and pose a security headache, like Gaza. The 2000 Intifada, though
primarily in the West Bank in terms of population and area, was
addressed by Israel through withdrawal from Gaza, not the West Bank. On
the contrary, they launched [Operation] Defensive Shield. Because the
West Bank, in Israel’s plan, is the heart of the Zionist project. That’s
why I said: when Israel withdraws from the West Bank and Jerusalem, it
would mean a shift in the balance of power, and Israel would withdraw
from all of Palestine—it would leave all of Palestine.
So why did Hamas accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, without
calling it a two-state solution? Because the two-state solution implies
automatically recognizing Israel. In discussions with Westerners, we
told them: no, we accept a state on the 1967 borders as a shared
national project with the other Palestinian factions. As for recognizing
Israel, Hamas has a [clear] position on this—we do not recognize Israel.
However, we will respect the Palestinian will when it is consulted on
this matter and other related issues. As for us in Hamas, we do not
recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. So, why did we go with the
idea of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders? To reach a common
position with our Palestinian partners and also with the Arab and
Islamic countries. Hamas’s approach has been proven correct—not only
what Hamas presented in 2017, but even back in 2006 in the National
Accord Document that came from the prisoners’ initiative. All of this
was on the table—a state along the 1967 borders. However, even the
official Arab system, which presented King Abdullah’s initiative—may God
have mercy on him—through the Beirut Summit in 2002, has not been able,
over these past 23 years, to achieve a single step toward establishing a
Palestinian state, because Israel refuses it. Israel will not give
anything freely.
For Hamas, therefore, we are both principled and realistic. Principled:
we reject the occupation, we reject guardianship, we reject
relinquishing our rights to the land and to Jerusalem, the right of
return for refugees, and the independence of our national
decision-making. These are the principles and rights of our people,
including the release of our prisoners. At the same time, we are
politically realistic and deal with partners, including the Palestinian
Authority in Ramallah and Fatah. We are realistic in dealing with the
Arab and Islamic reality and the international community, and we are
ready to engage with any serious project to establish a Palestinian
state along the 1967 borders. Even though I realize, unfortunately, that
this is impossible because of Israeli policy, not just because of
today’s realities with settlers, or the policies of Ben Gvir and
Smotrich—this [only] reflects the essence of the strategy. The Likud has
a clear strategy: no Palestinian state between the river and the sea,
and if Palestinians want a state, they should go to Jordan. That is
their strategy. The difference between Netanyahu and Smotrich or Ben
Gvir is only in how they present the position. But Netanyahu does not
differ from them in essence—he does not recognize Palestinian rights.
Therefore, the current reality in Gaza, the settlements, the violations,
the attempts at displacement, and the war crime of genocide in Gaza show
that Israel does not respect Palestinian rights and does not accept a
Palestinian state. Nevertheless, we Palestinians—in Hamas, along with
our partners on the Palestinian scene and our Arab and Islamic
countries—are ready, if there is serious regional and international
commitment, for Israel to be compelled to withdraw to the borders of
June 4, 1967, including Jerusalem, so that we can establish our
Palestinian state. If the conditions are met, Hamas will accept this and
act responsibly. We will build a real democratic Palestinian state—not
like Israel today, which claims democracy while violating it even
against its own citizens.
Like
<https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2510348&post_id=181695740&utm_source=substack&isFreemail=true&submitLike=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNjc1MTU4MywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTgxNjk1NzQwLCJyZWFjdGlvbiI6IuKdpCIsImlhdCI6MTc2NTgxOTQwMCwiZXhwIjoxNzY4NDExNDAwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjUxMDM0OCIsInN1YiI6InJlYWN0aW9uIn0.f2fBl7Hx3tFn6hSU_KW7MxvkLqCf5I6EBP_n0akQE6c&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-reaction&r=lvppb>
Comment
<https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2510348&post_id=181695740&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&isFreemail=true&comments=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjozNjc1MTU4MywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTgxNjk1NzQwLCJpYXQiOjE3NjU4MTk0MDAsImV4cCI6MTc2ODQxMTQwMCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI1MTAzNDgiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.Fcy-EY8d2aXzf3DndDNxDdgn8KfjzxNztZCTtIoXHAo&r=lvppb&utm_campaign=email-half-magic-comments&action=post-comment&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email>
Restack
<https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9vcGVuLnN1YnN0YWNrLmNvbS9wdWIvZHJvcHNpdGVuZXdzL3AvaGFtYXMtbGVhZGVyLWtoYWxlZC1tZXNoYWFsLWludGVydmlldy10cnVtcC1tYWdhLXVuaXRlZC1zdGF0ZXMtc3VwcG9ydC1pc3JhZWwtZ2F6YS1uZXRhbnlhaHU_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.hCEDOYYV31DXKp30vm4MnhNvP0BFpTgvLCtyIKKSVTg?&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email>
© 2025 Drop Site News, Inc.
Drop Site News Inc., 1930 18th St NW
Ste B2 #1034, Washington, DC 20009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20251215/30e5beaf/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list