Zakaria Zubeidi "we tried weapons, but all armed struggle was futile" New York Times
Executive summary
Zakaria Zubeidi told The New York Times that Palestinians “have to reconsider our tools,” saying both armed resistance and cultural initiatives have failed to achieve statehood — a line widely reported across Israeli and international outlets [1] [2] [3]. Israeli institutions and right‑leaning outlets criticized the profile for downplaying his past as a commander of the Al‑Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades and his alleged role in attacks during the Second Intifada [4] [2].
1. A dramatic personal arc that frames the claim
Zubeidi’s interview is consequential because it comes from a man who rose as a militia commander in Jenin, accepted an amnesty and later co‑founded the Freedom Theatre, escaped prison in 2021, and was freed in January 2025 in a hostage‑prisoner exchange — a life that media portray as militant, cultural actor and inmate, which he says left him disillusioned [1] [3] [5]. That biography is the context for his headline statement that “we tried the rifle, we tried shooting,” and that decades of different approaches did not produce the Palestinian state many sought [3] [6].
2. What Zubeidi actually said and how outlets reported it
The New York Times published a profile quoting Zubeidi urging Palestinians to “reconsider our tools,” and reflecting his conclusion that armed struggle, cultural resistance and politics had not yielded sovereignty for Palestinians [1] [3]. Israeli and international press summarized the quote as an admission that “Palestinian terrorism” or “armed struggle” had been futile; some headlines framed it bluntly — “there is no peaceful solution” or “our attacks failed” — amplifying the most stark interpretations [6] [7] [8].
3. Competing narratives in coverage and official pushback
Israeli government and pro‑Israeli outlets faulted the Times profile for allegedly glossing over or softening Zubeidi’s violent past — pointing to his leadership of the Al‑Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades and accusations linking him to deadly attacks — and argued the piece underplayed his alleged responsibility for attacks [4] [2]. The Israel Prison Service also publicly denied Zubeidi’s claims about repeated beatings and lost teeth while incarcerated, according to reporting that included the prison authority’s denial of such incidents described in the interview [9].
4. How different outlets shaped public perception
Left‑leaning or international outlets emphasized his personal reckoning and the symbolic weight of a former militant questioning decades of tactics [1] [3]. Right‑leaning and Israeli outlets highlighted victimhood, security concerns, and the danger of normalizing a figure accused of terrorism, using headlines that stressed the “admits” and “confesses” angle [8] [6] [7]. This split demonstrates how the same interview was used to either signal a potential opening in Palestinian debates about strategy or to reaffirm fears about threats and impunity.
5. What the interview does and does not prove
Zubeidi’s statements show his personal disillusionment and call for reassessment of tactics; they are a significant testimony from a prominent militant turned cultural actor [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention independent verification that Zubeidi’s assessment represents a broader, organized shift within Palestinian political leadership or armed groups; reporting confines itself to his views and public reactions [1] [2].
6. Why this matters now
Zubeidi was freed in a high‑profile prisoner swap and therefore occupies a symbolic role for many Palestinians; his rejection of past strategies is newsworthy because it comes from someone emblematic of different phases of resistance — violent, cultural and judicial — that failed to yield the desired political outcome, in his view [5] [3]. Opponents of the framing argue the profile risks humanizing or equivocating about alleged perpetrators of violence without sufficient focus on victims, a criticism voiced by Israel’s legal and political spokespeople in response to the Times piece [4] [9].
7. Bottom line for readers
Zubeidi’s interview is an important primary source on one influential Palestinian’s reckoning: he says multiple methods failed to produce statehood and calls for rethinking tactics [3] [1]. Readers should weigh that personal judgment alongside reporting that emphasizes his past alleged violence and authorities’ denials of some of his claims; the coverage split reflects larger political stakes about legitimacy, memory and how journalism frames former militants [2] [4].