Hamas’s external chief Khaled Mashal delivered a fiery address that openly celebrated the organization’s armed campaign and portrayed the group’s arsenal as a source of national dignity, vowing that its struggle against Israel would continue. Speaking via video to supporters gathered in Istanbul, he praised the October 7 attacks as a defining event meant to push Israel from what he called “our homeland,” while dismissing the foundations of President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza.
His remarks were broadcast on Al Jazeera during the “Pledge to Jerusalem” conference, where Mashal charted an uncompromising vision for the next stage of Hamas’s strategy. Even though the group has publicly entered the first phase of the U.S.-mediated ceasefire that began two months ago, he rejected the core requirements of the American proposal — including international oversight, demilitarization, and Hamas’s removal from governing authority.
Mashal told his audience that although the stage he described as the most brutal period of a “genocidal war” had passed, the conflict with Israel would continue. The message he delivered cast Gaza as the spearhead of a broader regional mission and the October 7 “Al-Aqsa Flood” massacre as an uprising that set into motion what he sees as a turning tide for Palestinians.
He appealed to the global Muslim community to unify around what he described as a religious and national campaign centered on Jerusalem, asserting that the “liberation of Jerusalem” must become the symbol of Palestinian aspirations. Among the ambitions he laid out were claims that the Al-Aqsa Mosque must be “cleansed,” holy sites reclaimed, and that Gaza’s actions had “turned into the pride of the nation and the conscience of nations.”
Israeli media outlets highlighted passages in which he dismissed any possibility of external authority assuming control of Gaza or the West Bank, declaring that Palestinians themselves alone possess the right to govern. Mashal insisted that Hamas will not accept any “guardianship, mandate and re-occupation” of Gaza or “all of Palestine,” and that “the Palestinian is the one who governs himself and decides for himself.”
This rejection extended directly to the International Stabilization Force and the Board of Peace that the Trump peace plan envisions as central elements of Gaza’s transition. Mashal argued that attempts to redefine Palestinian claims “into misleading frameworks are rejected,” reinforcing his refusal to allow outside actors to shape Gaza’s future.
One of the strongest themes of his speech was Hamas’s pledge never to relinquish its arms. He declared that “the resistance project and its weapons must be protected,” describing them as fundamental to Palestinian identity, and stated that “the resistance and its weapons are the honor and strength of the nation.” He mocked diplomatic appeals, saying “a thousand statements are not worth a single projectile of iron.”
Mashal predicted that Gaza would eventually oust foreign forces and described this period as an “opportunity” for Palestinians to “remove this entity [Israel] from our homeland and exclude it from the international stage.” He portrayed Hamas’s war effort as a vehicle for reshaping both regional politics and international legitimacy.
Even the pro-Palestinian outlet Palestine Chronicle underscored that Mashal’s message rested on a few central pillars: Yerushalayim, resistance through arms, and the insistence that no external bodies may direct Gaza’s future. It framed the speech as a blueprint for Hamas’s next phase of activity.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry swiftly circulated clips of Mashal’s remarks, warning that the Hamas leader’s rhetoric “made a mockery of President Trump’s peace plan” and signaled that Hamas has “no intention of disarming, giving up its weapons, its rule, or its path.” The ministry stressed that Mashal had also rejected any international presence in Gaza, calling his speech a repudiation of the plan’s fundamental conditions.
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar reinforced that interpretation, noting that Mashal had publicly thrown out every requirement that made the ceasefire and hostage-release process possible. He argued that Mashal’s statements illustrate why negotiations with Hamas remain deeply unstable.
HonestReporting, which monitors media portrayals of Israel, pointed out that Mashal’s sweeping rejection of disarmament was ignored by Western outlets. Idit Bar, a researcher on Arab and Islamic affairs quoted by the group, said Mashal “put all the cards on the table: no to disarmament, no to relinquishing Hamas’ rule, yes to the annihilation of Israel, yes to the liberation of Jerusalem.” She emphasized that calls for “cleansing” Al-Aqsa of “impure Jews” and freeing prisoners effectively incentivize more kidnappings, given Hamas’s lessons from October 7.
Mashal also laid out additional goals, including halting what he described as the “Judaization” of Judea and Samaria and intensifying regional coordination against Israel. He urged supporters to challenge Israeli officials in international bodies and to expand activism on college campuses and in the media.
Within Hamas-friendly networks, the speech circulated widely as a statement of direction for the organization, placing Jerusalem and armed struggle above all other considerations. The celebration of resistance and the rejection of outside authority became the speech’s defining features.
Mashal’s hardline posture stood in stark contrast to comments released one day later by another senior Hamas official, Bassem Naim. Speaking to the Associated Press in Doha, Naim said Hamas was “very open minded” about pursuing a “comprehensive approach” that could involve “freezing or storing” its weapons for a period of five to ten years as part of an extended truce intended to pave the way for a Palestinian state.
Naim maintained that Hamas still holds its “right to resist,” yet acknowledged that the group might permit its arsenal to be placed under Palestinian controls with guarantees “not to use it at all during this ceasefire time or truce.” At the same time, he insisted that international forces would not be permitted “inside the Palestinian territories,” limiting any foreign role to border-monitoring duties.
Under Trump’s 20-point plan, such a temporary weapons freeze falls short of what the proposal requires. The framework, endorsed by the UN Security Council, calls for Hamas’s complete disarmament, the transfer of internal security responsibilities to vetted Palestinian police units supported by an International Stabilization Force, and the handover of governance to a technocratic Palestinian committee.
One of the plan’s provisions makes clear that Hamas and similar organizations must “not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form,” and that all terrorist infrastructure, including tunnels and weapons factories, must be dismantled and prevented from reemerging.
The plan mandates the creation of a temporary International Stabilization Force in Gaza to cooperate with Israel and Egypt on border security, to prevent weapons from entering the Strip, and to oversee the reconstruction process through a controlled flow of goods. The ISF would effectively manage the transition from IDF control to Palestinian civilian administration under a deconfliction mechanism.
Point 17 allows Israel and stabilization forces to move ahead district by district if Hamas refuses to uphold the agreement, enabling reconstruction to occur in “terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF” while remaining pockets of resistance are addressed separately.
Retired U.S. Army Major John Spencer referenced this clause in his analysis online, arguing that Hamas’s leadership no longer holds the leverage it once did. He suggested that the IDF could continue “high intensity operations against Hamas to kill, capture, disarm Hamas one area at a time while other forces create bubbles of stability for ever increasing size of the population,” implying that Mashal’s stance fits within contingencies anticipated by the plan.
{Matzav.com}
