Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Trump’s Colonial UN Resolution for Gaza with Shahd Hammouri
519 Plays1 hour ago
International law expert Shahd Hammouri examines the details and far-reaching ramifications of UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which endorses US President Donald Trump’s colonial plan for Gaza amid the ongoing genocide.
Recommended
Transcript
UN Security Council's Contradiction with International Law
00:00:00
Speaker
This ultimate contradiction between the UN Security Council, where they're policing the world and where international law and peace and security is whatever the needs of the status quo are, in comparison to an actual logical law, a resolution like this, that is in violation of the most basic principles of international law, right of return, reparation, self-determination, it agitates that contradiction
Is Palestine the Last Straw for International Legal System?
00:00:26
Speaker
directly. And puts us back to the paradigm of while international law is not going to save Palestine, the question is whether or not Palestine will be the last straw that breaks the system apart.
00:00:41
Speaker
From Ashabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, I am Yara Hawari, and this is Rethinking Palestine.
Trump's 20-Point Plan for Gaza and Resolution 2803
00:00:51
Speaker
On November 17th, 2025, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2803, endorsing US President Donald Trump's 20-point plan for Gaza. The vote follows weeks of political pressure from Washington on Security Council members.
00:01:07
Speaker
The resolution ultimately passed with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions from Russia and China. In addition to an overall endorsement of the plan, the resolution calls for the establishment of two supposedly transitional bodies to take control of Gaza.
00:01:24
Speaker
The first is the Board of Peace, a governing body tasked with overseeing aid delivery, reconstruction and day-to-day administration. The second is the International Stabilization Force mandated to take over security and disarm Hamas and other Palestinian political factions.
00:01:39
Speaker
Notably, the resolution does not refer to the genocide of the past two years, nor does it address accountability for it.
Colonial Criticism of the Resolution
00:01:45
Speaker
For many, this resolution reads as repackaged colonial control over the Palestinian people in Gaza who have faced more than two years of genocide at the hands of the Israeli regime.
00:01:55
Speaker
Joining me to discuss this resolution and its ramifications is Shahad Hammouri, legal scholar and a Shabaka member.
The Build-Up to Resolution 2803
00:02:03
Speaker
Shahad, thank you for joining me on this episode of Rethinking Palestine.
00:02:08
Speaker
Thank you for having me. Shahad, perhaps you can give us an overview of the lead up to this resolution. How did it come about? What's the story behind it?
00:02:19
Speaker
As you're all very much aware, for the past two years, Israel has been conducting its genocide in Gaza, and the carnage led by the settler colonial entity was never-ending. And the ah horizon of a political solution really was completely faded out by both the US and Israel.
00:02:40
Speaker
All efforts in order to take third state obligations forward were repeatedly blocked and and most importantly by the United States. Attempts to use the Security Council for this, as we all know, were repeatedly vetoed ah by the United States. The International Court of Justice accepted delay tactics by Israel
US Influence and Alternative Proposals
00:03:00
Speaker
and the U.S. ah when judging on its case. The case is still going to be heard and almost mid-next year, which is far too late, far too ah lacking in diligence and for citizens the need for justice. So we were ah particularly stuck in the sense that every day we had ah this never-ending carnage. And despite all the movement in the world, we were able to stop just a little bit of the arms flow, a little bit of the energy flow, but really it was on full speed. So at that moment, we were looking very hopefully towards coalitions like the Hague Group that sought to enshrine their obligations in under international law and ah global south states that were not complicit in the genocide. So these were states that the Palestinian people were able to trust to act in solidarity with them because they were states that on one level or the other were trying not to be affiliated with the supply chain of genocide, even though some of them did have on some level or the other some ties. So building on that, and after the Bogota meeting in July, there was a movement towards taking ah advantage of the UN General Assembly meeting in order to push for a Uniting for Peace resolution. And that had anticipated that the UN Security Council will fail once again to call for a ceasefire. And there we would be able to leverage the General Assembly for ourselves.
00:04:24
Speaker
However, the sad thing there is that after Colombia had a draft resolution ah calling for a stabilization force, yes, but that stabilization force would have been manned by friendly states. states that ah bear good faith and would engage with the United Nations. This wasn't an ideal solution, but in in supporting that plan, we hope to circumvent what had happened now.
Legal Implications and Normalization of Illegal Actions
00:04:50
Speaker
So halfway through work for this, and almost almost a few days before Colombia was seeking to table its resolution, Trump announced 20-point plan.
00:05:01
Speaker
As most likely we'll be discussing going forward, that plan is normalizing the illegal in its entirety. And then other states who wanted to work with the U.S. on this resolution, on on this plan, had noted that they would only accept it if it it has a U.N. n mandate. So the U.S. sought to do what it did with Iraq, what it did with Kosovo, which is seeking a U.N. mandate in order to normalize its illegal action and its imperial hopes and dreams in the region. So it went to... So suddenly we heard of this draft resolution going around in the Security Council. And we knew that Algeria was pushing for amendments.
00:05:41
Speaker
And according to diplomatic circles that we engaged with during this period, people who have been working in the United Nations for over 30 years report that they've never in their whole careers seen this level of coercion used by the United States of America to ensure that a resolution goes ahead. Indeed, the U.S. was supported by Gulf states in the 20-point plan.
00:06:04
Speaker
Also in the New York plan that was facilitated by European Union members, which is not very far off, it really lacked engagement with the Palestinians. The difference between the New York plan and what we ended up with was that the New York plan was way much more trusting
Geopolitical Dynamics: Russia and China
00:06:19
Speaker
of the Palestinian Authority. This plan is much less so. First, the Palestinian Authority rejected this plan because it undermined their position.
00:06:26
Speaker
However, the position of the Palestinian Authority changed quite a short while after. And the before that happened, there was two attempts to modify this by Russia, who put forward a set of amendments. So we have multiple amended forms and Russia put an alternative resolution that sought to evade the Board of Peace itself. So it was an attempt to ah seek a way whereby U.S. isn't given full reign and this would be more of a U.N. mandate. However, the U.S. basically said it's this or nothing. And if you remember in the news, it was saying they were saying that
00:07:06
Speaker
They were basically threatening the states that if they don't accept this, the genocide will be restarted again. So not only were they coercing the Palestinians, they were also coercing other ally states ah to say that you either accept this or not.
00:07:19
Speaker
The fatal blow came when um multiple states, including Turkey, Jordan, um the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and if I remember correctly, Pakistan, came out with a statement saying that they fully support the UN Security Council resolution. And that was the moment when all the pieces fell apart. All a attempts at that time to discuss with diplomats um in informal channels to try to to try to sound the red alert for this resolution and everything suddenly were completely, absolutely blocked. ah We had diplomats who were asking a lot of questions. Everyone ah we spoke to had noted how fearful they were, as well as their concern that this was going ahead. However, after that ah statement, shortly after the Palestinian Authority said that they, too, support this resolution only a few days after we saw it. And basically, the U.S. put the resolution in. You either take it or you leave it.
00:08:18
Speaker
And if you
Impact on Gaza's Governance and Resources
00:08:19
Speaker
leave it, not only will the Palestinians suffer, but also the other state that so goes against this will suffer. And that's how we got where we are now, through a long game of ah coercive tactics, as well as if you would like to call it treason by other states whose whole populations would completely be against this if the people understood the legal technicalities underlying their state's position.
00:08:47
Speaker
And I think it's it's not particularly surprising that certain states went along with this. But I do recognize that there must have been quite massive amount of political pressure to get that kind of consensus at that kind of level. But what I find quite ironic about all of this is that the US has been seeking a UN mandate when it has consistently steamrolled over the international legal system, continuously for the last two years, including sanctioning the ICC. So why was it important for them to get that resolution? Could they not just move forward with the the Trump plan, regardless of resolutions from the UN or any kind of consensus from the the international community?
00:09:33
Speaker
Well, to start with, actually, this was the conditionality of the UAE and as well as Saudi Arabia, who asked for a UN mandate to legitimize this. And there are multiple reasons why. ah First of all, this makes it absolutely difficult to contest this in courts around the world, because there is a paper that says that the highest authority in the world has approved this. That's the ultimate contradiction in the international legal system. And ah so i so I also feel that this was also a way to evade what otherwise would be ah dissent by the local populations to say that this is something that the UN has signed onto. And you will very clearly note the complicity of the media in this. Mainstream media has been insanely complicit. I myself have tried to publish about this multiple times. i have a like i have some I have one op-ed that went through seven different channels of rejection that was kind of trying to call the red flag on this. However, the moment we got the UN Security Council resolution... All of the mainstream media now want to talk. And I'm like, you know, this is... And not only that, they talk and then they edit out my talk in ways whereby they don't demonstrate the other points of of contestation that I'm trying to speak about. So there is this kind of, let's say, ah fake legitimacy that this piece of paper is giving and... ah played around. And not only that, also the people of Gaza had this fake propaganda thrown down at them saying that this is the best solution for you. And it's either this is what's going to bring prosperity for Gaza and investment. So it's one way ah where we could think of the the reason why they sought the Security Council resolution is to ensure that they have a way to respond to the masses and dilute the perception of the masses and make them feel that, oh, this is actually absolutely legitimate. You're the ones who are contesting nothing. And perhaps you shouldn't contest things you don't understand by making it. legally complex and sound legitimate and picking and choosing bits and pieces of what does this actually ah mean. And the second thing I believe would be to guard them against ah more of strategic things that we would have been able to use and tactical things that we would have been able to use had this plan gone forward without a UN mandate, because this limits our capacity to contest this in legal circles ah through advocacy, as well as diplomatic circles because everyone responds saying that. I would also have to add that even though everyone was coerced, the Palestinians were coerced to accepting this, this piece of paper still says on one level or the other, you consented to this. So it's a good way to distort the whole thing all the way around.
Media's Role in Legitimizing the Resolution
00:12:25
Speaker
If you're enjoying this podcast, please visit our website, al-shabaka.org, where you will find more Palestinian policy analysis and where you can join our mailing list and donate to support our work.
00:12:37
Speaker
And it's ironic that Trump's plan now has this official endorsement from the UN because it actually violates international law in multiple ways. But perhaps we'll we'll go into that a bit later. I wanted to ask a bit more about the passing of the resolution itself. It passed with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions from Russia and China. Do you think there's any significance to those abstentions?
00:13:03
Speaker
Indeed. So first of all, Russia, as I noted before, had put forward an alternative resolution. ah So it wasn't really in favor of this, nor was China. And my understanding is that both diplomats from China and Russia ah were trying to work against this. However, ah their ah position wasn't in that invested to lose political leverage in all of their other fights with the United States of America. Perhaps this wasn't the hill that they wanted to die on or to escalate on them, more or less. And it's indeed something that ah does signal to the Palestinian community that this is a strategic space that we haven't been capable bill of leveraging. So when I first heard about this, my first question to diplomats were like, do you believe that at any point the Russians or the Chinese would veto this? And they're like, they don't have enough interest to do this. And then the question is, how is it that we would have been able to make it more of an interest to them?
00:14:01
Speaker
And I think there are multiple ways that this could be useful in the future. But indeed, from a geopolitical perspective, the US further entrenching its control in the Middle East is not good for either China or Russia ah in the sense that they are trying to compete. However, China's imperial policy is rather different and not that offensive. So this is not inherently in our favor. But if anything, this signals...
00:14:28
Speaker
future path of collaboration and focus for us. As far as my understanding goes, we actually have very minimal engagement with the Chinese and the Russian authorities, um who in this case were able to perhaps provide us a little bit of their leverage to protect us or give us alternatives. And historically, people who are struggling for their liberation did leverage um when imperial powers had ah conflicts with each other to their benefit. And perhaps this is a lesson for us
Board of Peace and Colonial Comparisons
00:14:59
Speaker
going forward. But sadly enough, yeah, we weren't interesting enough for a veto.
00:15:04
Speaker
Not interesting enough, but also perhaps it signals how much deference there is to the the Trump administration globally. Absolutely. And how much also a level of fear and coercive power. But at the same time, I believe that China and Russia are are quite smart in their like moves with with the US, with the Trump administration so far. I just think there wasn't enough profit. We're not that profitable.
00:15:33
Speaker
So the resolution obviously endorses Trump's 20 point peace plan, as we mentioned, does it do anything else? Are there any deviations, anything particularly interesting in the the text of the resolution?
00:15:47
Speaker
It actually provides us with a much more extensive comprehension of the ah plan going forward. But if you and only if you read the resolution hand to hand with the intelligence that we have had so far, you'll be able to bring in the pieces of the puzzle. So ah the first of which is this board of peace that we heard. So this board of peace will be there until the Palestinian Authority is deemed competent. According to Israeli officials, the level of competency that will be seeked is to quote unquote, the level of Sweden um by the Palestinian Authority. And this was one of the biggest things that actually Russia had rejected this this whole board.
00:16:30
Speaker
I don't think anyone can achieve the level of of competency that's the that the Swedes have achieved. Indeed. And also for them, you know, a competent authority is ah subjugated authority. and a submissive authority. Nothing more than that. um So it gives us, while it doesn't give us any details to the construction of the board, we now know that it will also be led by business leaders from the US, from the Gulf, as well as Palestinian, quote-unquote,
00:17:04
Speaker
technocrats who are basically Palestinian businessmen who a lot of the names that have been thrown around are also people who are complicit in the genocide themselves and people who have profited off the pain of the Palestinian people. The structure really reminds us of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was established in the UN Resolution 1483. Except in this context, rather than it being a declared official occupation of Gaza, this is a de facto occupation because that's the complete power that is being given ah here. And actually, this is on one level or the other worse than the powers given in Kosovo. in 1999, because in Kosovo, when the administrative body at least was un administered. So, um and and as we know, that was the, that was also the resolution that facilitated the NATO intervention in Kosovo, which was completely disastrous.
Economic Exploitation and Debt Impact
00:17:59
Speaker
The power of this civil authority is more or less of that of an interim government, and it will oversee humanitarian aid. And according to intelligence we have or up until now, as we expect, they will be administering the aid again in a form that's a weaponization of food. So they will get to decide who eats and who doesn't, and there will be ah quite an expansive comprehension of who is, quote-unquote, resistance. Anyone who refuses this plan will be ah punished, and that will start with prohibition of getting food. So also so far we know that this will also be run by a very similar a private military contract. It will be run by UG Solutions, I think, was it? The same company that was running the Gaza humanitarian foundation. So with complete lack of transparency, even some of the latest reports say that when you enter now, the newly found, this newly administered body, it's mix of people with very different variant understanding of what this is. One person in the room actually asked who is Hamas, and they were just shooting around ideas into how they will take this ah forward. So this is completely taken forward by this resolution. And so there's zero transparency, zero.
00:19:20
Speaker
So there is no mechanism for any kind of accountability. The Board of Peace is not answerable to to anyone. There's no kind of oversight mechanism. um The International Stabilisation Force is um is in turn accountable to the Board of Peace. So really, you know, this issue of transparency and accountability can lead to really corruption on all levels, but just a deterioration of the situation on the ground for Palestinians. And I think one of one of the bizarre things about this resolution is also how much it contradicts previous resolutions from the UN and rulings, countless, including the ICJ advisory opinion from October, which reaffirms UNRWA and other um agencies as the agencies through which humanitarian aid should be delivered and and coordinated through. And this resolution really completely steamrolls that. And just on the the point of the Palestinian Authority, this this word reform, which has been the sort of condition for which the PA can take over Gaza,
00:20:31
Speaker
has been completely emptied of any kind of meaning. The reform of Palestinian leadership was once a popular demand from Palestinian civil society to challenge corruption and to end collaboration with Israeli security forces. And now that term has been completely emptied of any meaning. In fact, it means, it doesn't mean reform at all. It means capitulation. It means depoliticization and it means, importantly, key figures in key positions, those figures that would be in complete deference to the US and to the Israeli regime.
00:21:08
Speaker
Which is why, again, this brings back very sharp memories of Iraq and the debatification, even though it's not like we have something to undo, but basically the promise to sell Palestine in bits and pieces. And which is also why this brings back to mind Burma's orders, ah that we have a very wide set of orders that really sought to entrench dependency and corruption in the Iraqi state in a way that we, of course, see very clearly now. So which is why this is a de facto American occupation. And one thing, other thing that this resolution brings is a direct reference to the World Bank and the um IMF. So instead of paying the Palestinians reparations, what they are proposing is to drown Palestinians in debt, which is another form of subjugation and domination. Like in Latin American people's tribunals, they have even called IMF loans to be a form of a crime against humanity due to the damage that
Historical Economic Control Tactics
00:22:08
Speaker
they cause. And this is also where we should be really worried about the natural resources in Gaza, because the Board of Peace has the authority as an international legal person to actually sell off
00:22:20
Speaker
Gaza's land, Gaza's resources, and to develop it as they wish, and to incur debt on the Palestinians as they go about, quote-unquote, developing it. So here we really should be fearful for Gaza's gas resources, especially the untapped energy resources that Oniktad, which is um the UN Center on Trade and Development, estimates that that's billions of income that has been lost to the Palestinian people, they would do to it what they did to ah the energy resources of er Iraq. Sell them off for the highest bidder with zero income coming back to the Palestinian people. I promise you tomorrow morning Chevron will be coming in and they already, Chevron's already been in discussions around dasra this gas, EMI and BP as well. So, and the worst thing is that piece of paper They will be selling it, quote unquote, in the name of the Palestinian people due to a false economic presumption that free market selling off your whole country to multinational corporations is good. And very little amount of Palestinians will benefit from this. Like as Ghassan Kanafani tells us, when the horizon of the political solution is completely killed by Israel, what they do is that they open up a small window that fits only a small amount of Palestinians and thereby they saw fragmentation because people will see. So, for example, they will indeed build malls or fancy buildings, but those will not be affordable to most Palestinians in Gaza. who will be living in ghettos away from the sea, and then the bits around the sea will be developed and sold to the highest bidder. And here we will expect that people from the Gulf would actually be buying that estate. And little by little, this would facilitate foreigners and maybe also Israelis if the Palestinians are sedated enough So this this plan in the UN Security Council doesn't mention, of course, the reformation of the Palestinian um curriculum, but the 20-point plan, as well as the New York plan,
00:24:27
Speaker
does So there is indeed that hostility, even though and like under international law, and this is something that I always love reminding people, um because people, you know, they keep on telling us a good Palestinian is a quote unquote peaceful Palestinian. However, under international law, ah Israeli and American aggression are always...
00:24:48
Speaker
like unlawful. Meanwhile, Palestinian aggression, sorry, Palestinian violence is a lawful ah act of resistance. So it's it's like if if the if anyone has the right to use violence in this case, it's the Palestinians. But nothing in this resolution actually seeks to apply the Hague regulations because according to the Hague regulations, the people under occupation don't owe a duty of allegiance to the occupying power. What we expect here is mass incarceration and other abogrebs. Like, you know, these are the same minds. We have Tony Blair, like revived from the death to come and give us the blessings of how to do that.
00:25:28
Speaker
I mean, Tony Blair and his think tank, the Tony Blair Institute, have actually been working on reconstruction so-called reconstruction plans and so-called day-after-reserve plans for for quite some time since probably the beginning of the genocide in a very, very nefarious and very secretive way. So they have actually been key in some of those private discussions where Palestinians, of course, have have not been involved. So none of this is new. We have a lot of lessons that we can learn from our history, you know, the financial domination, um you know, making sure that the Palestinian people are indebted, take on
Historical Battles in International Law and Justice
00:26:04
Speaker
loans. I mean, that just reminds me of Fayyadism, the Salaam Fayyad era, um the weaponization of aid as well, um is something that has been continuously present throughout Palestinian history, including by
00:26:18
Speaker
international organizations and and UN agencies. So I think that there is there is a lot to to learn and sadly we're gonna see a lot of these power structures on steroids as this plan unfolds. But Shahid, I wanted to to ask you, and perhaps this is a bit of an obvious question, but what what does this what does the passing of this resolution say about international law and the UN as an institution? And specifically, in the case of Palestine, what does it say for for our struggle moving forward?
00:26:54
Speaker
So in international law, there is a battle and it's actually and a battle that is as old as um the international creation of the international legal system itself. So once states started to um gain their independence, previously colonized states, they called for the reimagination of this system. And for example, you had Judge Alvarez in the Anglo-Iranian case say that we need a different philosophy of international law that is premised on the idea that international peace and security is only going forward if we have equality and if we rethink our perception of the world through understanding interrelations with each other.
00:27:38
Speaker
On the other hand, you had this other philosophy of international law that is the mainstream one, that is international peace and security is the status quo and upholding it as it is. And these two streams have been in conflict with each other. for quite a long time. And ah what what I call the people's international law was much more visible in the General Assembly, especially in the 60s and 70s, when we had the UN n Declaration on Friendly Relations and the Declaration ending colonization and whatnot. So and and those people and and those perspectives, the Global South perspectives, as well as important Arab names like Georgia Bissarba, Mohammed Bidjawi, were very much convinced that, you know, um with the idea of justice and and and with the idea that this law is only useful if it's just. And they really pushed the boundaries of this law. Georgia B. Saab is the reason actually why we have an official recognition of the right to resist.
00:28:36
Speaker
But what happened is ever since the end of the Cold War, because it's a unipolar world, it has become very difficult to use that platform and that space. Very institutionalized, very bureaucratic. And even those trying to contest it are civil society actors funded by the same actors that um ah ah build us in. So the UN n Security Council, when it comes in with a resolution like this, that is in violation of the most basic principles of international law, right of return, reparation, self-determination, And the stabilization force indeed to me is a hostile occupying army. And most importantly in this is that the the notion of coercion, which is very important for states of the global south ever since that era is completely overlooked. And ah the idea that the Palestinian Authority didn't say yes until it was coerced. And it's not like the Palestinian Authority represents the Palestinian people. But nevertheless, all of these risks were taken away. So this ultimate contradiction between the UN Security Council, where they are policing the world and where international law and peace and security is whatever the needs of the status quo are, creating this parallel, what we call rules-based order, um in comparison to an actual logical
Palestine's Challenge to the UN's Effectiveness
00:29:53
Speaker
law. So this move comes in really, ah like it agitates that contradiction to its core and really puts us back to the paradigm of while international law is not going to save Palestine, but the question is whether or not Palestine will be the last straw that breaks the system apart with a security council. African states have been asking to be in the security council forever. There's so many movements to destroy the security council forever. And ah not only that, the fact that we the fact that Palestinians were barred from going to the General Assembly while Israelis were completely um ah allowed to go and roam free. All of that puts to the question of why is the UN, which actually hardly has money now because the US cut most of its funding, still in the US? Why do I have to get these long visas to go to Geneva? Why can't we just meet in Senegal and Kenya? And why can't we talk to each other in a more um logical way? And hopefully, what people are hoping is that
00:30:50
Speaker
What is happening now, this destruction of the system will lead to its rebirth. Sadly enough, again, with Russia and China not willing to help us, our hopes ah and dreams of that are not perhaps clear in the near future, but in the longer future. Indeed, the US is willing to to take down international law and European states are also willing to take international law, all for the eyes of Israel.
00:31:12
Speaker
Shahad, is there any way for this resolution to be reversed? As an international lawyer, I could tell you like, this is the highest power on earth. And again, that's the ultimate contradiction in this law. So the only way to reverse it is through another UN Security Council resolution. There was a question of whether or not we could take this to the International Court of Justice.
00:31:34
Speaker
That is a possibility. It hasn't been tried. um There is a case law by the International Court of Justice that did actually say that if there is a contradiction between the Security Council resolutions and international law, that we can override it. However, that's not consistent precedent. There is also work by the International Law Commission that also states the same thing in relation to peremptory norms of international law. And this is a direct case of that contradiction. So the question of whether or not we could contest it, perhaps there are ways that we can strategically seek to do that. However, they are bureaucratic and very long and draining. The other path is if this path is completely catastrophic, which it will be. The people of Gaza are not going to accept this resolution. Attempts to displace them away from the sea into the ghettos will not be met. The Gazans are very much willing to stay on the rubble of their own homes after they've lost every single person in Gaza has lost at least ah two family members um and a good number of family members maimed and injured. So they're very much not willing to move. Of course, the sad thing is that
00:32:43
Speaker
What we understand is that the authority will also facilitate immigration and will deny those who immigrate their right to return, which is another very red flag about this. But to reverse it, in reality, the main problem is is that, and this is why we were really trying to warn from this, because that will give the US and Israel the excuse to kill and maim much more people. However, if that happens, then the question is, will we go back to where we were, where we're able to um hone in or harness any alternative? But this really means that in the meantime, as we see how things a shape up,
00:33:21
Speaker
I think rather than getting ourselves lost in endless bureaucracy, the question is how is it that we'll be able to unify our voice and be able to override all of these limitations that were put on us and expressing our right to self-determination. And that's the most important thing, finding out who our allies are and building our relationship with them. Because whatever the outcome is, once we are asked, okay, what do you want to do now? we need to have a
Closing Remarks and Ashabaka's Mission
00:33:49
Speaker
viable answer. And in the past two years, we haven't been capable of giving that viable, a sustainable answer. Of course, under coercion, um we are incapable of uniting our voices. But still, it's very important that we now really think of that.
00:34:05
Speaker
Shahad, thank you so much. We'll end it there for this episode of Rethinking Palestine. Thank you for having me.
00:34:13
Speaker
Rethinking Palestine is brought to you by Ashabaka, the Palestinian policy network. Ashabaka is the only global independent Palestinian think tank whose mission is to produce critical policy analysis and collectively imagine a new policymaking paradigm for Palestine and Palestinians worldwide.
00:34:30
Speaker
For more information or to donate to support our work, visit al-shabaka.org. And importantly, don't forget to subscribe to Rethinking Palestine wherever you listen to podcasts.