Hamas leader Khalid Mashal asserted that “the resistance and its weapons are our honor and glory,” emphasizing that the struggle is ongoing. He claimed that rights would be established “in recruitment offices, not in the UN Security Council,” outright contradicting President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, which views the events of October 7 as pivotal in pushing Israel out.
During a video appearance at the “Pledge to Jerusalem” conference in Istanbul on Saturday, foreign Hamas leaders voiced strong opposition to core elements of Trump’s plan, including the disarmament of Hamas and the establishment of international forces. This comes even as the group moves towards what seems like a second phase of a U.S.-brokered ceasefire they initially accepted two months ago.
Mashal told his followers that, while the most severe part of the “genocidal war” in Gaza might be over, the conflict isn’t finished. He called on the Muslim community to aim for the liberation of Jerusalem, viewing it as a symbol of Palestinian freedom. He also mentioned the need to “cleanse” the Al-Aqsa Mosque and reclaim holy sites, maintaining that Gaza stands at the forefront of the Al-Aqsa Flood massacre, which serves as a source of national pride for Palestinians.
He made it clear that there would be no “protection, mandate, or reoccupation” of Gaza or anywhere else in Palestine, arguing that Palestinians can govern themselves and do not require outside protectors. This stance particularly rejects any involvement of Trump’s proposed International Stabilization Force in overseeing security or reconstruction efforts.
“Any attempt to frame our cause within misleading terms is unacceptable,” he reiterated, asserting that no external authority would take control of Gaza. Most importantly, Mashal reaffirmed Hamas’ stance against disarmament, stating that the “Resistance program and its weapons” must be preserved, as they embody the people’s right to self-defense. He assured supporters that Gaza, which he described as “mighty,” would ultimately drive out the invaders.
Israeli media highlighted Mashal’s speech, expressing that it mocks Trump’s peace initiative. The Israeli Foreign Ministry accused Hamas of showing no intention of disarming, citing Mashal’s outright rejection of any sort of external oversight in Gaza.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warned that Hamas leaders are denying essential preconditions for moving forward with any ceasefire or hostage framework, while some in the media have noted a lack of coverage of Mashal’s comments by major Western outlets. One researcher remarked that Mashal laid out clear intentions—no disarmament, a commitment to the annihilation of Israel, and a focus on liberating Jerusalem.
In a somewhat contradictory context, another Hamas official, Bassem Naim, later stated that the organization might be “open” to the idea of a long-term ceasefire that could involve “freezing or storing” weapons, though he firmly rejected any international military presence in Palestinian territories.
President Trump’s proposed second phase involves disarmament, an international force, and the removal of Hamas from governance—a plan Mashal categorically dismisses. The framework demands that Hamas and other factions withdraw from governance entirely, while an International Stabilization Force would seek to secure Gaza’s borders and manage reconstruction efforts.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conveyed openness to international aid but expressed skepticism about whether external forces could carry out complicated tasks in Gaza. He reiterated his commitment to disarm Hamas, emphasizing that Israel would ensure it doesn’t rebuild its military capabilities, even if his approach means Israel takes on this responsibility directly.
In conclusion, Mashal’s words reflect a continuing commitment to armed resistance, even as negotiations shift and some Hamas officials experiment with the rhetoric of a potential ceasefire. This tension illustrates the ongoing struggle within the organization to balance internal perspectives while navigating challenging external diplomatic pressures.
