The Intelligence from The Economist: An interview with a Hamas leader

Against a backdrop of COVID-19, supply chain disruptions, and economic headwinds, air travel in the U.S. has recovered unevenly.

In the latest survey conducted by Economist Impact, we learned that despite greater demand in fall 2022, travel for business has stagnated through spring 2023.

Will the travel industry's challenges outlast the recovery period, and how are air travel executives responding to these shifting trends?

Check out our survey findings, sponsored by AT&T Business, at airtravel.economist.com.

Hello, and welcome to The Intelligence from The Economist. I'm your host, Aura Ogumbi. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

Not long after I spoke to you on The Intelligence yesterday, colleagues of ours in Doha, the capital of Qatar, carried out an interview with Musa Abu Marzou.

Greg Kaustram is our Middle East correspondent.

Abu Marzou is a senior political leader within Hamas. The group has both political and military leaders.

It also has officials who are based inside of Gaza and those who are based outside of Gaza.

He's in the latter camp. He's a political leader who has been based for a long time in Cairo and is one of the political officials who deals with the outside world for Hamas.

On the morning of October 7th, Hamas fired more than 2,000 rockets at Israel, and then it was quickly discovered that that barrage was cover for a much bigger ground operation.

Hundreds of Hamas militants cut through the border fence separating Gaza and Israel. They fanned out to cities and towns in southern Israel, and they began killing Israelis and taking hostages.

As we know now, the death toll has risen above 1,200 Israelis, and there are more than 100 people who were abducted by Hamas and brought back to Gaza.

So Greg, tell us about this interview with Abu Marzouk.

He spent over an hour speaking with us from his office on the first floor of a nondescript building on the outskirts of Doha.

The interview was conducted by Zani Minton Bedouz, the Economist's editor-in-chief.

Rocha Nashanbog, our business affairs editor, was also with Zani.

Abu Marzouk spoke in Arabic. He speaks English and occasionally corrected his translator, but he conducted the interview in Arabic.

It went for over an hour, and we did this interview for two reasons.

One was to find out, journalistically, some answers to questions that everyone is asking right now.

What is the prospect for these hostages? What were Hamas's motives in carrying out this attack?

What sort of coordination did it have with countries like Iran?

But also because we wanted to challenge the group on the atrocities that it's committed in Israel on October 7,

the images of which have been emerging for the past few days.

That was the first thing we asked about, and we've decided to leave this opening clip long so you can hear the full back and forth.

I have to start by asking.

How can you justify the atrocities that have been committed in Israel, murdering hundreds of innocent people?

How can you justify the atrocities that have been committed in Israel, murdering hundreds of innocent people?

They didn't commit suicide, they didn't kill a child, or a sheikh, or a person who is not a fighter, or a fighter.

We have a problem in Palestine, not like all the wars that the Palestinians fight from the south and from the citizens.

For sure the Al-Qassan fighters did not commit any atrocities, they were committed to the international and moral laws.

They were fighting against settlers and soldiers.

I'm sorry, that is manifestly not true.

The scenes from the music festival, the greatest loss of Jewish life in a mass murder since the Holocaust.

No.

The main target was 15 military posts and the music festival was by coincidence, maybe those were bypassers to the festival music.

How can it be bypassers when they were together in their hundreds and they were clearly attacked?

They were not randomly, you could not have confused them with anything other than innocent civilians.

I'm sorry, that's not credible.

They were not in a music festival when the battle was about to start, they were in the wrist mode or maybe sleeping mode.

They were like the soldiers who had been killed in their military posts.

And of course they were considered by fighters as settlers, not as tourists.

And I'm not sure if they were knew that those are tourists, not settlers or Israeli soldiers, they will not kill them.

That's why we challenge.

There's a one child who had been killed by Qassan fighters.

Among the 1000 have been killed from the Israelis, you will not find a single child.

But regarding the Israelis, there were tens of those Israeli children who have been killed by the Israeli strikes on Gaza.

So you are saying that no Israeli children were killed by the Palestinian fighters.

Greg, what's your reaction to what you've heard there?

The idea that this attack was focused on military targets or that no civilians were killed, that is very clearly not true.

We have seen all sorts of horrific images emerge over the past few days from Kibbutzim like Khwaraza and Be'eri where we understand that militants went door to door killing people in their houses.

We've seen videos from that music festival where more than 200 party goers were murdered.

We know that there are women and children among the dead and this is all documented by overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence.

So Hamas not even attempting to justify what it did, it's not even admitting what it did.

There are many, many people around the world including people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause who think that these scenes of carnage in Israel over the past few days have done real damage to the Palestinian cause.

And we asked Abu Marzou about that and about what it was he was trying to achieve, what it was Hamas was trying to achieve and whether this was in fact counterproductive to their goals.

Could you explain to me what you were trying to achieve? How could this possibly further the Palestinian situation?

We are facing on daily basis continuously lots of aggression especially after the far right has controlled the Israeli government.

They want to dissolve the conflict upon four questions, upon the Aqsa Mosque and they want to convert it to a synagogue.

Accordingly they are displacing Palestinians there and destroying their homes in Jerusalem, confiscating lands and building settlements over it.

They want Jerusalem to be solely for the Israelis and it's against the will of the international community and they want to dissolve the conflict in the West Bank.

To turn it as a land of Israel. That's why they want to increase the number of settlers to one million settlers.

They want also to dissolve the conflict in the future of Palestinians. That's why Netanyahu said it crystal clear that the Palestinians should not dream on their state.

Doesn't this kind of violence, this kind of massacre close all the doors?

Makes it less likely that you achieve your goals.

On the contrary all the doors were closed and this is the thing which will open a door.

We know very well that the political solution is the way to achieve all the people in this region their rights but unfortunately this is the only door we have been forced to knock.

Greg, Abu Marzouk mentioned the Al Aqsa Mosque. Remind us of its significance.

Al Aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam behind only the cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia and it's always been a flashpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It's something that's important not only for Islam but also for Palestinian national identity.

There have been wars and uprisings that started because of incidents at the compound.

Israeli police raids on the mosque for example or Israeli efforts to tighten security measures around the mosque.

These things have caused major confrontations in the past but there haven't been any major disturbances at the mosque in recent days.

If you're trying to understand why Hamas carried out this attack I think a lot of it has to go to a bigger question about Palestinian politics

where there is a looming power vacuum, the president is 87 years old, has no clear successor, is deeply unpopular.

So Hamas and Fetah, the president's nationalist party, are vying for leadership of the Palestinian people

and I think this assault was meant to be above all a political boost for Hamas within the context of Palestinian politics.

It's still an open question as to what support Hamas might have received in the planning of this attack.

What did Abu Mazouk have to say about that?

Zani asked him directly whether or not Iran was involved in planning the attack and gave the go-ahead for the attack and he gave a very direct response.

How closely is Iran involved?

It's not credible to say Iran has no relation with this. We know and Hamas admits in fact that Iran provides financial support,

it has provided weapons to Hamas, it's provided other sorts of military and logistical help so to say there is no relationship is not credible.

At the same time we have now a Hamas official seemingly denying that Iran ordered or planned this attack.

The Israeli army spokesman says the same thing and there has been no credible evidence to emerge

suggesting that Iran had any role in organizing this or giving it the go-ahead and that's an important question

because there are concerns that what right now is a war between Israel and Hamas could turn into a broader multi-front regional war.

There have been skirmishes on the northern border with Lebanon where Hezbollah, another Iranian-backed group of course has quite a formidable arsenal.

There are concerns about other Iranian-backed groups in the region perhaps getting involved and so this question of Iranian support,

it's not just an academic question, it's also a question that could have real bearing on security in the region.

It also has bearing perhaps on the question of Israeli-Saudi normalization,

which is something that has been discussed quite a lot in recent months, the possibility of Saudi Arabia recognizing Israel.

That's also something Zanni discussed with Abu Marzou.

Let's talk a little bit more about why now.

You gave a list of reasons.

You did not mention the potential normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

How much is that part of your calculus in the timing now to derail that process?

Freedom fighters does not look on those questions at all.

They planned away before the Saudi-Israel normalization.

Normalization has been a growing concern for the Palestinians since 2020 when four Arab states joined the Abraham Accords and agreed to recognize Israel.

Of course, the Palestinian cause has long been seen as a pan-Arab cause that united countries across the region

and there is a feeling that a growing number of Arab countries, at least their leadership if not their peoples,

no longer want to be a part of that cause and want to abandon the Palestinians and throw in their support with Israel.

That's something that has been a concern for Hamas but also for a great many Palestinians.

I think this is likely to not derail the prospect of Israeli-Saudi normalization but certainly delay it.

What we're going to see as Israel carries out airstrikes in Gaza now and prepares for a ground invasion

probably weeks if not months of very bloody violent scenes of devastation in Gaza

and that is not going to be a backdrop that the Saudis would want to have to normalizing relations with Israel.

Greg, one of the major concerns right now is the safety of the Israeli hostages.

Do we know what Hamas might demand in exchange for their safe return?

First, Zani directly asked whether or not Hamas plans to keep the hostages safe.

The group has threatened to start killing hostages in retaliation for Israeli airstrikes

if those airstrikes are conducted without warning to civilians living in buildings.

Our religion, our morals ordered us to keep the lives of those.

But just to be clear on your side, you are categorically saying you will not kill the Israelis who are your hostages in Gaza.

For sure, no.

You called them prisoners of war. These are among them are many Israeli civilians.

These are not combatants.

Why do you not release the civilians?

It's too early to talk about this issue. We can't differentiate between combatants and civilians yet.

Later on we asked what it would take for Hamas to free these Israeli hostages

but Abu Marzouk wouldn't give an answer.

He didn't demand anything yet.

The proper time will come when we will ask lots of demands.

We will achieve all our goals.

Hamas claims it won't harm hostages.

However, Zani kept pressing about whether or not they would intentionally harm civilians in general.

I hear you saying the State of Israel is a Western project has no right to exist.

I hear you refusing to acknowledge that you have killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

And I ask myself, how can this situation possibly get better?

For sure there are some civilians, but it's your responsibility.

And we are victims. Before them, they be victims.

That is unfortunately the sort of answer one hears all too often in this conflict.

It has gone on for 75 years and the response to violence, the response to atrocities on either side

is always to point to the fact that at some time before atrocities were committed against you.

Greg, there's a growing expectation of a ground invasion to Gaza by the Israeli forces. How ready is Hamas for this?

The Israeli army has mobilized 300,000 reservists and it has spent days moving military equipment

into position near the border with Gaza.

And it looks like the army is preparing for prolonged urban combat, which is going to be devastating for both sides.

The casualty count will be high for the Israeli army, but the numbers will be much, much higher for Palestinians and Gaza

living in a place that offers no safe haven, offers nowhere to go.

It's very difficult to leave Gaza if you wanted to flee and it's very difficult to find somewhere that is safe in this densely populated territory.

And so there is a real mood of fear amongst Palestinians and Gaza about what is coming.

Zani, our editor-in-chief, spoke to Musa Abu Marzou about exactly this.

There are preparations being made for an Israeli ground invasion. How will you react to that?

This is what we are waiting for.

Because we can't confront the American fighter jets from the skies.

We don't have the capabilities to confront those jets, but we have tough men on the ground.

They will confront any threat.

The rhetoric from the Israeli army over the past few days is that they are preparing to go in and remove Hamas from power to uproot the group.

That is something that is much easier said than done as Israel learned during its occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s.

As America learned in Afghanistan, it is very difficult to destroy a group like this when it is in power.

The rhetoric from Hamas, meanwhile, continues to be very hard-line rhetoric.

They do not believe that Israel has the right to exist and they have a complete unwillingness to compromise.

Just to be clear, you and your Hamas' goal, you do not recognize the state of Israel's right to exist, correct?

Hamas, we have no right to exist.

From that goal, how can you possibly expect peace?

Why do you insist on not allowing the existence or not wanting the existence of the state of Israel when that makes it impossible for any progress to be made?

That's why you are a terrorist organization. That's why you are seen as what you are, being terrorists and not as potential partners.

We gave a chance and we agreed upon what the world had been recognized with the Palestinian Authority.

And we knew before and forecasted that this process would be failed.

But we agreed upon a state in the West Bank and the God Strip.

And we issued a political memorandum talking about that.

But you didn't give a chance for Palestinians to create their state side by side with the Israelis.

The failure of the Oslo Accords is lamentable.

But in the world of today, the only progress is a progress that first of all recognizes the state of Israel's right to exist.

And secondly, is progress towards peaceful coexistence.

Have you given up on a two-state solution completely?

And if you have, what is the way forward for you?

It's clearly impossible that you will eliminate the state of Israel.

No, it's not impossible.

On the contrary, it's the nearest way to achieve a Palestinian state.

Why do you think the state of Israel has no right to exist?

Because their country is not Palestine.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.

And you don't care how many Palestinians are killed in the process of you pursuing this dream.

Of course, freedom is more valuable than my life.

Dignity is more valuable than life.

The homeland is more important than life.

Many people would listen to that and say those are the words of a fanatic.

It's up to them what they are thinking about.

Greg, what can we learn from this interview?

Let me answer that with a story from another interview.

I met several years ago with Mahmoud Zahar, who is one of the founding members of Hamas.

We met in his house in Gaza, and he was trying to explain to me the difference between life in Gaza under Hamas

and life in the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority.

He said, you know, we see every week these violations in the West Bank.

We see Israeli checkpoints. We see Israeli home demolitions.

We see Israeli raids that kill Palestinians.

He said, here in Gaza, since Hamas took power in 2007, there are no checkpoints.

There are no home demolitions. There are no raids.

We were doing this interview in his house, which had been rebuilt several years before

because it was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike during the 2014 war.

And he was sitting on the sofa beneath a portrait of his son, who was killed in 2008 by the Israeli army.

There's this belief within Hamas, certainly within the leadership of Hamas.

They think that they have liberated Gaza from Israeli control.

They think that they are inflicting grave damage on Israel and that there is some imminent victory.

And it doesn't matter how long life goes on and how miserable conditions get in Gaza.

They hold to this belief that victory is coming.

Do you consider this to have been a victory?

The image of the Arab defeat since 1948 have been ended after the year 2000.

And the Israeli can't defeat the Palestinian.

The wars of 2008, 2012 are a significant proof.

You can point to those recent wars and say they are proof that Israel can't defeat the Palestinians.

But you can also point to them as proof that the Palestinians can't defeat Israel

and that Israel is capable of inflicting vastly more damage on the Palestinians than the other way around.

And this is always the depressing and infuriating thing about speaking with officials from Hamas.

They hold to this idea, despite all evidence to the contrary, that military force will end the occupation,

will liberate the Palestinians.

It hasn't done that and really all it has done, certainly in Gaza over the past decade and a half,

is bring misery on the 2 million people who live there.

There's a telling moment at the end of that interview which gets at just this paradox of asking for peace through violent means.

Do you think it will be better for the Palestinians?

The situation for Palestinian civilians will be better, you think, after one year?

Yes.

Let's meet again in one year.

I find that hard to believe.

Promise.

I don't think violence and fanaticism.

Me too.

I would like to live in peace, really.

Really?

I find that hard to believe listening to you.

Really, but maybe to get the peace, they have to fight.

Greg, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you.

That's all for this episode of The Intelligence.

We're launching a new subscription, Economist Podcast Plus, on October 24th.

Thanks to the thousands of you who have already signed up.

If you haven't yet, but would like to keep enjoying our full suite of podcasts,

including our specialist weekly shows and our upcoming new ones, join us.

It's half price until October 17, just $2 a month.

Follow the link in our show notes or search Economist Podcast Plus online to find out more.

And we'll see you back here tomorrow.

These are travelers expect to fly more often in the next six months,

but only 13% of business travelers do.

How will air travel executives reprioritize tech innovation and investment based on shifting travel trends?

Explore our latest research sponsored by AT&T Business at airtravel.economist.com.

Machine-generated transcript that may contain inaccuracies.