After days of traveling between cities, listening to people recount their stories, each carrying their own piece of the conflict, I turned to someone who could help me place these stories within their regional and global political context. Kawa Hassan, a foreign policy analyst and expert on the Middle East joined me over Zoom from Belgium. Formerly Executive Director, Europe & Director, Middle East and North Africa Program at the Stimson Center in Washington D.CI, Hassan, now a geopolitical consultant, brings decades of experience navigating the region’s shifting political terrain. Originally from Sulaymaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan and now based in Brussels, he’s spent his life moving between cultures, languages, and ideologies.
I first stumbled upon Kawa Hassan’s work late one night, scrolling through a dense web of think pieces and policy reports. One article fascinated me, “How October 7 Transformed the Middle East.” In the article, he argues that the widespread destruction in Gaza and repeated failures to protect civilians have accelerated the decline of the U.S.-led liberal rules-based order. Even so, these developments could lead to transformative ripple effects on future conflicts, human rights norms, and the implementation of the United Nations’ 2005 “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.
What struck me most was how Hassan connected these sweeping geopolitical shifts to tangible human stakes, showing how policy decisions reverberate across communities and across borders. I knew then that I had to hear more. A month later, I reached out to him, and we connected over Zoom with the following transcript.
Petra:
Thank you so much for joining me today. I really found your article to be particularly engaging.
Kawa:
I’m glad to hear that. It means a lot. You know, I have long-standing relationships with many Palestinian and Israeli friends and colleagues. And over the years, I’ve met others—friends and professionals—deeply connected to or working on the Palestinian issue. Personally, I’m Dutch, but of Kurdish origin, from Iraqi Kurdistan. I’ve followed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since I was ten. It has always fascinated me not just emotionally, but strategically. I try to approach these matters from a sober lens, even with the Kurdish issue. If I find myself emotionally overwhelmed, I don’t write. I wait until the noise inside settles.
Petra:
That’s a powerful approach.
Kawa:
Thank you. It’s essential to me. That’s why, in the piece you read, I referenced one of my favorite
Palestinian thinkers: Majid Al-Kayali. Have you heard of him?
Petra:
No, I haven’t.
Kawa:
I strongly recommend reading his work. He’s one of the most strategic and clear-minded writers on the Palestinian issue, critical, sober, and unafraid to look inward. That’s crucial. You can criticize Israel, and you should when it’s deserved, but it’s equally important to examine your own side with honesty. Being Kurdish, I understand how difficult it is to self-criticize when you are oppressed, but that is precisely what a good analyst must do.
There is no shortage of voices supporting Palestine, the Kurds, or any just cause. But that support cannot become a carte blanche for blind allegiance, especially now, given the scale of destruction in Gaza. I’ve run out of words for the dehumanization and starvation we’re witnessing there.
But even amid such horror, we must ask difficult questions: what strategic thinking, if any, was behind Hamas’ decision to carry out the October 7 attacks? Did they weigh the risks to Palestinians in Gaza, who are confined in one of the most densely populated areas in the world? This wasn’t just another operation. It was a fork in the road. A turning point with consequences we’re only beginning to comprehend.
Petra:
So from your view, what were the strategic implications?
Kawa:
Militarily, what Hamas did was unprecedented. From a purely intelligence perspective, they shocked Israel in a way no one anticipated. In that sense, they made their point. They reminded the world that Palestinians exist, that the conflict had not been solved or sidelined by the Abraham Accords. But—and this is crucial—they failed to think through what came next.
Looking back now, I understand how the thinking of Israeli society, shaped by the legacy of the Holocaust, produced a psyche, across both right and left, that responded to this horrific attack with existential fear. Add to that Israel’s immense strategic support from international powers, and you have a dangerous cocktail. And yet, had Hamas acted differently in the days following their attack, the trajectory of this war could’ve been drastically altered.
Petra:
What do you mean by “acted differently”?
Kawa:
They could have made a historic pivot. Within the first weeks, once it is became clear Israel’s military response was unprecedented, Hamas should have issued a formal statement: “We acted because we thought the Abraham Accords ignored the root cause of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, our people’s suffering was ignored, and we launched this operation to put Palestine back on the map and we’ve succeeded.” Saudi Arabia reportedly was on the verge of formalizing ties with Israel. That news, they could have argued, drove them to take such a historic and fateful decision, one they believed had already achieved its goal.
At that point, Hamas could have announced their Gaza-based leaders would go into exile, and transfer governance to an Arab/UN led coalition. The details of governance and security could have been negotiated later, but the message would have been historic: Hamas would dissolve itself entirely and release all hostages unconditionally and immediately under independent, international supervision.The leadership will leave Gaza, and governance will be handed over to the Palestinian Authority, or to an Arab-led body backed by Egypt, Qatar, or Turkey.
To me, failing to do so was not just a historic strategic mistake—it demonstrated, very frankly, an utter lack of responsibility towards Palestinian people trapped in Gaza. Such a statement would’ve cornered Israel into a moral and strategic dilemma. The world would have seen a resistance group make a bold, painful, but historic decision for peace and national responsibility. Instead, blinded by ideology and a self-inflated image, Hamas continued to operate as if its military surprise alone could rewrite the political map and history.
Petra:
That’s an incredibly provocative scenario, one I haven’t heard articulated quite like that.
Kawa:
Yes, and I stand by it. Their failure to pivot strategically is not just a political miscalculation; it is a clear-cut indication they lack a minimum sense of responsibility towards Gaza civilians. The second critical error came in January and February, during the ceasefire, when Hamas staged that humiliating parade of hostages. In my view, that act not only inflicted deep harm on the people of Gaza but also destroyed whatever legitimacy Hamas still had. It radicalized even moderate Israelis, giving Netanyahu and his far-right ministers the perfect excuse to resume war. Having said that, it was clear from outset, Netanyahu didn’t need a justification at all to resume the war, but nonetheless Hamas should have acted responsibly but they refused to do so, again blinded by belligerence, ideology and self-inflated image.
Petra:
You’re saying Hamas’ actions validated Israel’s continuation of the war?
Kawa:
Exactly. Hamas handed them justification on a silver platter. Now, as Gaza is bombed into ruins, where are the so-called defenders of the people? Where are the heroes? They’ve disappeared underground while the civilians suffer above.
Worse still, the statements coming from some Hamas leaders are disgraceful. They show no sense of responsibility. For them, it seems the Palestinian people are expendable as long as Hamas survives. That is unconscionable.
Petra:
Do you mean that Hamas could have ended their involvement honorably and potentially saved thousands of lives?
Kawa:
Yes. They could have achieved their tactical goals and then stepped aside. Dissolved themselves. Allowed a transition. Had they done that—offered clarity, humility, and unconditional release of hostages—they would have transformed their image and the global narrative. Instead, they dug in, choosing pride and power over their people’s well-being.
It’s one thing to win by surprise; it’s another to navigate the consequences wisely. Resistance can be noble, but resistance without responsibility becomes reckless. This has turned into a political and humanitarian catastrophe, amplified by miscalculation and a refusal to adapt.
Petra:
Following that, I have a broader question: do you believe military action is ever justifiable by either side?
Kawa:
That’s a complicated question. Let me speak first as an analyst, then as a Kurd. But before I answer, we need to sit with what we just discussed: the story of Hamas in this war is not only about resistance; it is also about the failure to lead with vision, a failure now paid for in rubble and blood.
So as a principle, when you are under oppression, you have the right to resist, including armed resistance. But it must be calculated, strategic, and should avoid harming civilians. That’s where the line is drawn. Legitimate armed struggle does not justify terrorism or targeting innocent people.
Petra:
It sounds like you’re saying that while resistance can be legitimate, the methods and targets matter
hugely.
Kawa:
That’s true. If the cause is just, it should not be used as an excuse to commit atrocities or worsen the
suffering of your own people. Unfortunately, that has been part of the tragedy in Gaza and the region.
Petra:
And how do you see the international community’s role in all this?
Kawa:
The international community often plays a contradictory role, sometimes supporting peace efforts and sometimes enabling violence indirectly. Their support for Israel is strong, especially from the West, but there are shifts now. Yet the Palestinians often remain sidelined. That needs to change.
Petra:
So what would be your hope or recommendation moving forward?
Kawa:
My hope is for sober and responsible leadership on both sides—leaders who prioritize their people’s welfare, avoid cycles of violence, and seek real dialogue. For Palestinians, that means rejecting violence and extremism. For Israelis, it means to end the destruction of Palestinian life and infrastructure in Gaza, and accept Palestinians’ right to statehood.
Petra:
Thank you, Kawa. This has been a very insightful conversation, and I appreciate your honesty and depth.
Kawa:
Thank you, Petra. I appreciate the opportunity to share these perspectives.