On February 27, 2025, after 40 years of armed struggle against Turkey in which tens of thousands have been killed, Abdullah Öcalan, head of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), who is imprisoned in Turkey, called on his supporters to disarm and dismantle the party.
Responding to his announcement, which essentially acknowledges the futility of the Kurds' armed struggle against Turkey, voices in the Arab world called on Hamas and Hizbullah to do the same and recognize the failure of their war against Israel, which yields only countless losses and immense destruction. These organizations, they argued, should disarm and integrate in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Lebanese state.
The following are translated excerpts from two articles that called on Hamas and Hizbullah to follow Öcalan's example.
Palestinian Columnist: Hamas Suffers From Ideological Blindness; It Should Admit The Failure Of Its Current Path, As Öcalan Has Done
Muhammad Abd Al-Hamid, a columnist for the Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam, which is published in the PA territories in the West Bank, sharply criticized the Palestinian resistance factions, and especially Hamas, claiming that its "ideological blindness" causes it to ignore the defeat it has sustained, along with the resistance axis to which it belongs, in the war it initiated against Israel. Al-Hamid called on the armed factions to acknowledge reality and follow the example of Abdullah Öcalan by abandoning the armed struggle in order to spare the Palestinian people more suffering. He also urged them to join the PLO institutions without preconditions and recognize this organization as the representative of the Palestinian people that has the exclusive authority to make decisions on matters of war and peace.
Al-Hamid wrote: "Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan, who has been imprisoned in Turkey for 26 years, has called to lay down arms and dismantle the PKK... Having reached the conclusion, after 40 years of struggle, that weapons have failed to achieve the goals of the Kurdish people, Abdullah Öcalan and his party have called to disarm and replace the means [of struggle]…
"Our current situation as Palestinians is the result of ideological blindness that conceals the reality and bans all dissenting opinions. [Certain people] monopolize [the right to] assess the war's outcomes, just as they monopolized the decision to start the war and the decision to stop it. Hamas insists that it is winning the war, and at the same time speaks of genocide, destruction and the shattering of all aspects of life in the Gaza Strip.
"Nothing supports [its claims] of victory: not the number of casualties, not the images of destruction, not the dire situation of the victims of this tragedy, not the tragedy [itself] – either the one it acknowledges or the one it conceals – and not the ongoing Israeli control of the delivery of medicines, food, fuel and tents, or its control of the water and power supply, communications and traffic…
"Hamas ignores the plan to expel [the Gazans], annex [Palestinian territories] and eliminate the Palestinian cause that is being cooked up by American and Israeli circles, sometimes enthusiastically and sometimes more slowly, and may be implemented in stages…
"Hamas ignores the fact that the strategy of resistance has been defeated in Gaza, in the [West] Bank, in Lebanon and in the rest of the resistance-axis countries led by Iran. It ignores the defeat and does not even think of preventing the devastating political consequences of this defeat. Worse, it ignores the fact that the word is entering the Trump era, which is worse than the McCarthy era in America and the era of fascism in Europe…
"Trump is working toward returning all the [Israeli] hostages and leaving the Gaza Strip under Israeli military control while banning all [other] weapons and armed organizations [there] – without [even resorting to] war. If this proves to be impossible, he will let Netanyahu renew the war, whose stages have been outlined by [Israel's] military establishment, and which will begin with another expulsion of the residents from the north [of the Strip] to the south and with destroying what is still left of the north.
"Hamas thinks it holds trump cards that will allow it to thwart the American-Israeli intentions. Its strongest card is the 24 Israeli soldiers [sic] it is holding hostage, including officers, whose lives will be in danger if the fighting is renewed… The second card is the fact that renewing the war will endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands of [Gazans], which will erode what little is left of Israel's reputation and standing, and the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court will find evidence of its involvement in a war of genocide.
"But these cards are not enough to deter a state that is above the law and enjoys unlimited military and financial aid. Moreover, it is wrong – from a human, moral and national perspective – to agree to exacerbate the suffering, torment and degradation of the [Gazan] residents and to threaten their survival [just] so that Hamas can return to power.
"The failure to recognize [reality] – the mistake of the Al-Aqsa [Flood] escapade, the fact that the open resistance in the West Bank is a gamble, and the tragic and severe consequences [of the war] – has caused the escapades to continue, which could result in outcomes that threaten the Palestinians' very existence and their fate...
"We need [to adopt] positions and policies that will prevent further deterioration, losses and suffering by means of a Palestinian announcement, similar to that of Öcalan, that the resistance organizations will put a complete stop to their armed resistance. [At the same time] the Palestinian political movement and civil society must assess the experience and the outcomes of the Palestinian struggle over the years and demand that Hamas join the legitimate Palestinian institutions, join the PLO apparatuses, commit to the PLO's platform and rules without preconditions, and agree that it is [the only one] authorized to make decisions on matters of war and peace…"[1]
Lebanese Journalist And Politician: Hizbullah Must Acknowledge Its Defeat And Agree To Disarm
Similarly, in Lebanon there were voices that called on Hizbullah to emulate Öcalan and lay down its weapons in order to prevent any further decline of the country. Among them were Charles Jabbour, a journalist and the spokesman of the Lebanese Forces party, which opposes Hizbullah. Calling Öcalan's decision brave and realistic, he warned that Hizbullah's disarmament must not be coerced but rather voluntary, otherwise this organization will eventually rearm, resume its military activity and prevent a "historic" arrangement in Lebanon that will contribute to the stability of the country.
Jabbour wrote: "It's impossible to speak of a historic arrangement in Lebanon before Hizbullah emulates Mr. Abdullah Öcalan and announces its willingness to disarm, dismantle its military and security wing and transition to political activity…
"Öcalan's declaration reflected courage but also political realism, which caused [him] to recognize that his military plan cannot achieve its objectives. This is what motivated him to call on his party 'to dismantle and lay down its arms.'
"Hizbullah must follow his example… because the regional conditions that facilitated its plan no longer pertain. In the future, Israel will not allow it to [even] throw a stone at its communities, and the U.S. will show no tolerance toward Iran's destructive role in the region. Hizbullah's land route for delivering weapons through Syria has been blocked, and the same goes for its aerial route for the delivery of funds from Iran. As for its military infrastructure, it has either been destroyed, or has agreed to dismantle [as part of the ceasefire agreement]. So what is the point of this futile insistence to keep weapons it can no longer use?
"At the moment, Hizbullah clearly has no intention of disarming as Öcalan has done… which means that it is still betting that regional circumstances will allow it to revive its plan. That is the [only way] to explain why it insists on repeating the same rhetoric, as if it has not been defeated, has not surrendered, and its plan is not done for. On the contrary, it says with complete confidence that it is giving the government a chance to engage in diplomacy before it renews its so-called resistance. As if this option [can] produce brilliant results, when [in fact the results] range from innumerable disasters to humiliations that revealed the truth about [Hizbullah's] false claims regarding its strength and capabilities.
"It's impossible to speak of a historic internal arrangement in Lebanon before Hizbullah declares irrevocably that it is laying down its arms and joining the Lebanese project. In this context, it's important to distinguish between two main [scenarios]:
-- [A scenario in which Hizbullah] is forced to disarm due to its defeat, geographic siege, external circumstances and internal opposition [in Lebanon], but does not renounce its rhetoric and continues to talk about its military role, as though its status remains as it was. [This means that,] once the circumstances that forced it to give up [its weapons] change it will renew its destructive military plan…
-- [A scenario in which Hizbullah] disarms willingly due to external and internal factors that compel it to adapt… and gives up its ambiguous discourse [in favor of] political clarity by announcing its disarmament, the dismantling of its military wing and a transition to purely political action.
"The moment Hizbullah moves in [the latter] direction, it will be possible to discuss a historic arrangement. But before this [happens], it would be a mistake to deceive the public about arrangements that will collapse at the first opportunity and enable the armed gang to renew its [military] role.
"A historic internal arrangement in Lebanon is crucial in order to preclude the reasons that caused the country to explode and in order to turn over a new leaf toward a future that is as strong as possible, and which prevents [another] explosion and ensures permanent stability. But such an arrangement is impossible unless all the forces and components arrive at the conclusion that the weapons must be surrendered in favor of those of the state, and that the regional schemes must be abandoned in favor of the Lebanese project.
"It's crucial to speak honestly to the public. Until Hizbullah declares that it is disarming, dismantling its military wing and adopting [the approach of] 'Lebanon first and the state above all,' there will be no historic arrangement or anything remotely similar."[2]
