This interview is part of an ongoing series featuring conversations with representatives of various Palestinian resistance groups, including Hamas, the PFLP, and Islamic Jihad. It was conducted in October 2025, shortly after the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel. Since then, Israel has repeatedly violated the truce, resulting in the deaths of several hundred people.
The interviews will be published successively in the coming days.
Let’s begin with the ceasefire. Were there direct negotiations with Hamas, or was it imposed by an external actor? Or did the Hamas set its own conditions, negotiate, and achieve a ceasefire in Gaza?
A decision on the ceasefire was made when the movement’s proposal was presented. This proposal consisted of twenty points. The movement took its time and never withdrew from previous negotiations, including the most recent ones. The Zionist enemy, however, consistently avoided and delayed the negotiations and even attempted to assassinate the negotiating delegation. Hamas was responsible for its own actions.
The purpose of the entire negotiation process was to end the war and the genocide against our Palestinian people. Therefore, the expectations of the negotiating delegation reflected those of the Palestinian people: to end this genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Resistance exists because of occupation. If the occupation ends, there would be no need for weapons or resistance — we would function as a political party like any other in the world.
If we look at the issues that were negotiated — for example, ending the genocide and the killing of civilians, or allowing the entry of humanitarian aid — these are fundamental human rights. Yet the enemy, supported by the United States, forced us to negotiate even over such basic rights.
By making basic human rights a matter of negotiation, are the West and Israel setting a precedent?
Unfortunately, the Zionist enemy began politicizing the food supply of the Gaza Strip last year. They started negotiating with the resistance over the food supply for the people of Gaza. The so-called civilized world — the West as well as the Arab and Islamic world — remained silent in the face of this crime.
Neither in the First nor Second World War, nor in any other war, have we seen people dying of hunger or a population forced to fight against starvation. This is the point we had reached: the Zionist enemy wanted to free its prisoners, while the resistance set several conditions — a ceasefire, withdrawal of the Zionist enemy, entry of humanitarian aid, the return of displaced persons, and reconstruction. We already saw a violation in Rafah on the second day of the ceasefire.
Will the ceasefire hold in the long term — and is Israel a reliable negotiation partner?
Whether the ceasefire and this agreement will last depends on the role of the Arab mediators. They play an important role together with the Republic of Turkey, international guarantors, and the U.S. government. According to statements, the U.S. government seems serious — even though we do not rely on it — but it is determined to ensure that the agreement is observed and the ceasefire remains permanent.
The October 7 operation was a strategic operation. Yes, it was a military action, but it had political objectives.
Trump declared that the war was over, repeating it three times, but Netanyahu is trying to avoid this agreement for several reasons, which we will discuss in this interview.
Were there consultations with the other parties — the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other organizations — regarding the agreement?
Certainly. When the movement’s proposal was presented, we consulted the Palestinian resistance groups, mediators, and allies of the resistance. The decision was almost unanimously accepted by the Palestinians.
Does a ceasefire truly mean peace ?
As long as Israel continues to occupy territories — whether in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, or elsewhere — it remains an enemy, and we cannot call this a peace agreement. It is a ceasefire agreement. This enemy is an occupier, and there can be no peace with an occupier.
A group of Palestinians has tried the Oslo Accords for thirty years, but they have brought neither safety, stability, nor peace to our people. That is why we say this enemy understands only the language of force. It has tried to pressure the resistance in all forms but failed to achieve any of its objectives or goals.
Can a ceasefire or end to the war be achieved without holding those responsible for the genocide — and their supporters — accountable before an international court? Should that be part of the negotiations?
Many human rights organizations have begun filing lawsuits against the perpetrators of crimes in the Gaza Strip. Let us not forget that Netanyahu himself is wanted by the International Court of Justice — a fugitive from justice — along with far-right figures such as Ben Gvir and Smotrich.
Complaints are being filed against all of them. Some media outlets have already reported that human rights organizations are filing cases against named soldiers, and we hope that all those who committed crimes against our Palestinian people in Gaza will eventually be brought to justice.
Many international and Arab proposals call for Gaza not to be governed by armed or “extremist” groups. What is Hamas’s position on this?
Hamas’s position is clear. Regarding the administration of the Gaza Strip, we support a technocratic government — an administration or committee that is independent, competent, and purely Palestinian, capable of managing Gaza.
We are not determined to govern Gaza as Hamas. This aligns with the position of all Palestinian factions. However, the issue of weapons and Palestinian resistance is an internal matter. Weapons are tied to the occupation: as long as the occupation continues, resistance will continue.
Weapons are also connected to the concept of a Palestinian state. If there were a Palestinian state with an army, resources, and the ability to protect its people, that would be sufficient. Resistance exists because of occupation. If the occupation ends, there would be no need for weapons or resistance — we would function as a political party like any other in the world.
So weapons are a consequence, not a cause?
Yes.
If there were an international transitional administration for Gaza, how would you view it? Should it be Palestinian or Arab?
This independent administration, committee, or government must be understood and accepted by all Palestinian factions, resistance groups, as well as the Fatah movement and the Palestinian Authority. It must have the support of all factions — there must be consensus.
We have previously agreed on this and discussed it with all factions — in Cairo and in Beijing. Again two days ago. Talks are currently underway in Cairo on this topic. Therefore, we have no objection to those governing Gaza as long as they are purely Palestinian, independent, and supported by all factions.
Security in Gaza and its management should be entrusted to a technocratic government. Nature abhors a vacuum — there must be someone to maintain security, distribute aid, and ensure its protection. Thus, in the first phase, the role of political factions should be limited.
Do you believe the regional changes — from Assad’s fall in Syria to the war in Lebanon and the aggression against Iran — have affected the resistance movement and the Palestinian cause?
Today, the Palestinian cause stands at a new stage. Previously, we said that the train of normalization had started moving through the Arab world, with many Arab and Muslim leaders on board. It seemed that the Palestinian cause had been forgotten and that normalization and the Abraham Accords would dominate our region.
Then came the “Al-Aqsa Flood” to reaffirm that the Palestinian cause is still alive. What happened during “Al-Aqsa Flood” revealed a deep sense of empathy for the Palestinian cause and the rights of the Palestinian people.
We witnessed demonstrations and movements across all sectors — workers, students, universities, artists, athletes, and others — showing solidarity with the Palestinian people.
At this stage, the U.S. government acted as both opponent and overseer. The U.S. President proudly spoke of the airlift that supported Israel while simultaneously launching this new initiative.
Do you trust the current U.S. government — the most pro-Israel in history — to act honestly in regional negotiations or a ceasefire?
Of course, we do not trust the U.S. government or President Trump. The United States practices political hypocrisy and double standards on the Palestine issue. They are the main supporter of the enemy — politically, militarily, financially, and diplomatically.
They used their veto six times in the Security Council against a ceasefire. How can we trust such a government? We are negotiating a ceasefire and will adhere to it as long as the occupying power does. Therefore, we have no trust in the U.S. government, as it is the main supporter of Israel — and we have seen this clearly in every possible way.
How do you assess the stance of Arab and regional countries, including Turkey, over the past two years?
Some did not dare to sever ties or suspend trade with the enemy. Regarding the role of Arab and Islamic countries, we unfortunately saw that during the “Al-Aqsa Flood,” three Arab and Islamic summits were held — yet they achieved nothing for Gaza. They could not even deliver a glass of water to Gaza.
How can we trust them? We have great trust in the Arab and Islamic world, its peoples, and its leaders, but we had hoped for a stronger role — especially in the face of genocide. They should have moved beyond mere condemnations and statements to actually holding the enemy accountable, punishing it, and supporting the Palestinian people and resistance.
The Zionist enemy sought to expel the Palestinian people from their land. Moreover, it will not be satisfied with the borders of Gaza or the West Bank; it will continue to expand. This is Netanyahu’s expansionist project — to reshape the Middle East and create a “Greater Israel.”
The Americans and Israelis are attempting to disarm the resistance on all fronts — in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, and now Syria. They are calling for the disarmament and eradication of the idea of resistance. How do you view this?
The resistance and its weapons are legitimate, and we are not ashamed of them. These weapons and this resistance are guaranteed by all universal and divine laws. Even the UN Charter guarantees the right of occupied peoples to fight against those who occupy their land, including through the use of weapons, as stated in Article 154.
The enemy wants to dominate this region and will not tolerate opposition. There was massive resistance in Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and South Africa. How did these movements liberate their countries? Through force and confrontation.
Resistance arose because there was occupation. Without occupation, there would be no resistance. This is clear — it is the law of nature and the law of the land.
What is the movement’s stance on a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders?
The resistance stated its position long ago. But it was Israel that rejected the idea. Weeks before the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation, Netanyahu displayed a map of the Middle East, declaring there was no place for a state called Palestine.
This was echoed by far-right Finance Minister Smotrich, who said the war would not end until Syria was divided, Iran’s nuclear reactor destroyed, Hezbollah eliminated, and Palestinians expelled from their land.
They do not want Palestinians to have any role in their own land. Recently, Israel voted to annex the West Bank. How could they then grant the Palestinians a “state alongside Israel”?
In 2002, the Arab League in Beirut expressed support for a two-state solution, but these decisions were ignored, as Israel’s repeated statements make clear: they do not want any Palestinian entity within the “State of Israel.”
How do you assess October 7, 2023, after all the attacks, genocide, and destruction of the past two years? Was it part of the strategic efforts of the resistance?
The October 7 operation was a strategic operation. Yes, it was a military action, but it had political objectives. It was launched after the Palestinian cause had been largely forgotten — after decades of injustice and neglect.
Normalization was advancing, and the Palestinian cause was fading as if nothing had happened. It was therefore a strategic operation intended to deal a heavy blow to the enemy and stir stagnant waters — to disrupt the regional balance and push forward the establishment of our Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
What is the relationship between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? Will there be cooperation, especially in governing Gaza?
The Palestinian resistance has met several times with the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah movement. They met in Cairo, Beijing, and recently again, compelled to organize the common Palestinian home.
We support these efforts to unite and organize the Palestinian home, because the Zionist enemy wants neither Fatah nor Hamas nor any Palestinian component. Its goal is the eradication of the Palestinian people.
This is the first time we have come together to unite and confront those who seek to expel us from our land. We are preparing for the next phase because, as I mentioned, the Zionist enemy wants no one. A team tried through the Oslo Accords and the peace process, but it achieved nothing. Five years after the signing, the promise of a Palestinian state was still unfulfilled.
In Berlin, three people allegedly affiliated with Hamas were arrested in early October, accused of planning an attack on Jewish or Israeli institutions. Does Hamas support initiatives outside occupied Palestine?
Hamas has denied that any of its members were arrested in Berlin and has stated that it carries out no military activity there. Since its founding, Hamas has never conducted military operations outside Palestine and has limited its military actions to Palestine, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
This is a principle we adhere to, having learned from the experiences of others. Since its establishment in 1978, Hamas has never conducted operations outside Palestine. The West should understand this: we are a national liberation movement seeking to free our land.
We are present globally — as Palestinians in all capitals — but our main struggle remains against the entity occupying our homeland.
If Qatar yields to foreign pressure and closes the Hamas office, how would that affect the relationship between Hamas and Qatar?
Our relations with all Arab countries — including Qatar — are excellent. We thank Qatar for hosting the movement’s delegation and a number of Palestinian prisoners. Our relations are therefore strategic and fraternal. Qatar has never asked the movement’s leadership or any of its members to leave.
Relations remain friendly and brotherly. As everyone knows, Qatar acted as an honest mediator, deeply committed to achieving a ceasefire. It has also pledged to support the Palestinian cause and to help achieve a positive outcome — the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
We thank Qatar, other Arab countries, and all resistance groups — from Hezbollah to Ansarallah in Yemen, Iran, Syria, and Iraq — all those who stood for and supported the Palestinian cause.
Interview by Hüseyin Dogru
This interview was conducted for junge Welt and published in German on November 3, 2025.