The Sovereign Boundaries of Legitimacy and Law Deconstructing Contradictions in the Discourse of the Chief Justice of Palestine, Dr. Mahmoud Al-Habbash, and Assessing the Position on Armed Formations and Groups Linked to the Occupation

This paper presents a strategic and legal analysis of the public discourse attributed to Dr. Mahmoud Al-Habbash, Chief Justice of Palestine and President of the Sharia Judicial Council, particularly with regard to legitimacy, political exclusion, armed formations, Palestinian sovereignty, and groups allegedly linked to the occupying power. The paper does not seek to judge a particular political actor or to defend one Palestinian faction against another. Rather, it examines whether the legal and sovereign standards invoked in public discourse are applied consistently to different actors and forms of armed power. A preliminary methodological question is therefore introduced before assessing the substance of the position: In what capacity was the position issued? Was it a judicial ruling, a religious opinion or fatwa, or a political or institutional position? The paper argues that a statement made by a holder of high judicial office does not become a judicial ruling merely because of the status of its author. A judicial ruling requires jurisdiction, judicial procedure, a matter properly brought before the competent court, and a defined legal effect. The analysis then examines the historical and structural dimensions of the discourse, the distinction between political assessment and legal characterization, the unity of the Palestinian territory, the application of international humanitarian law, the legal significance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025), and the evolving regional and international negotiations concerning Gaza, security arrangements, and disarmament. Particular attention is given to the distinction between independent Palestinian armed formations, intra-Palestinian armed groups, and formations that may receive direction, financing, facilitation, or operational support from an occupying power. The paper emphasizes that allegations of treason, collaboration, or criminal responsibility cannot be established merely through political description; they require identification of the applicable legal provisions, the material and mental elements of the offense, jurisdiction, evidence, and due process. The paper concludes that the central issue is not the identity of the actor but the consistency of the legal standard. If the possession or use of force outside lawful institutions is rejected, the same standard must apply regardless of political affiliation. Likewise, if cooperation with an occupying power constitutes a violation of sovereignty or law when its legal elements are established, the same standard must be applied to all actors. The paper ultimately argues that the transition toward a stable Palestinian political order requires institutionalizing the security function, rebuilding public institutions, ensuring accountability, and preventing the replacement of one armed authority by another.