Hamdan: Hamas retains its military capabilities and adheres to the agreement despite 'political blackmail'

Osama Hamdan, a leader in the Hamas movement, stressed that the movement still retains its full organizational and military field capabilities, despite the extent of sacrifices and losses caused by the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip. Hamdan explained that the occupation's targeting of a number of senior leaders does not reflect a state of weakness or collapse, as some parties try to promote, but rather is part of the nature of major conflicts.

Hamdan indicated in press statements that Hamas has fought a harsh confrontation since October 7, 2023, during which it paid a heavy price from its cadres at various political and military levels. He affirmed that these losses did not lead to the disintegration of the organizational structure, noting that the movement possesses high flexibility and a historical ability to quickly and systematically fill leadership vacuums.

The movement's leader considered that the presence of leaders on the front lines and their martyrdom while performing their duties is evidence of direct engagement with the battle, and not an indicator of security breaches. In this context, he recalled the assassination of the movement's founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and his successor, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, in 2004, and how the movement continued to expand despite international expectations at the time of its demise.

In a related context, Hamdan launched a scathing attack on the Executive Director of the Peace Council, Nikolai Mladenov, accusing him of complete bias towards the Israeli narrative and contributing to obstructing the implementation of ceasefire understandings. He added that Mladenov lost the neutrality required in his international role and turned into a party adopting the agenda of Benjamin Netanyahu's government in international forums and the Security Council.

Hamdan explained that the international official miserably failed to follow up on the implementation of commitments related to the first phase of the agreement, especially regarding the entry of urgent humanitarian and medical aid. He also pointed to the failure of international bodies to support the rehabilitation of infrastructure and basic services in the Strip, despite previous guarantees in this regard under the supervision of mediators.

Hamas's leader accused Mladenov of ignoring the daily Israeli violations that followed the entry into force of the ceasefire, which resulted in hundreds of new casualties. He stressed that the UN official's silence on these violations gives the occupation cover to continue targeting civilians, and weakens the chances of success of the entire political process in the next stage.

Regarding the internal reconciliation file, Hamdan renewed the call for the Fatah movement to engage in a comprehensive national project aimed at confronting current challenges and unifying the Palestinian ranks. He affirmed that Hamas considers national partnership an indispensable strategic option, especially in light of American and Israeli pressures that seek to deepen the gap between Palestinian factions.

Hamdan revealed that Hamas sent an official congratulatory message to the Fatah leadership on the occasion of its eighth conference, which included a proposal to hold an expanded leadership meeting to formulate a unified national program. He pointed out that the movement does not merely launch slogans about reconciliation, but rather strives to turn it into a field and political reality that protects Palestinian rights in these critical moments.

Regarding the internationally proposed conditions, Hamdan categorically rejected any attempts to link the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip or the entry of relief aid to the issue of disarming the resistance. He described these proposals as a kind of 'political blackmail' that ignores the real causes of the conflict, which are the continued occupation and military aggression against the Palestinian people.

He affirmed that the issue of weapons has never been part of the current understandings with the mediators, and that raising it at this time aims to impose new Israeli conditions outside the framework of the agreement. He stressed that the resistance will not accept exceeding the existing understandings, and will not allow the use of the humanitarian needs of the population as a means of political or military pressure on the resistance forces.

Regarding the future of calm, Hamdan explained that Hamas is still committed to giving the ceasefire agreement a full opportunity to succeed, despite repeated Israeli violations. He indicated that this adherence stems from a responsible keenness to protect civilians and alleviate the catastrophic humanitarian suffering experienced by the residents of the Strip as a result of the widespread destruction.

Hamdan denied that adherence to the agreement was due to weakness, stressing that it represents a moral and political commitment before the international community and mediators to expose the party obstructing implementation. He added that the movement is closely monitoring the scene and continuously evaluating the extent of the occupation's commitment to the agreed-upon terms, to make appropriate decisions at the appropriate time.

Regarding the available alternatives in the event of the collapse of understandings, the Hamas leader affirmed that giving the political path a chance does not mean the fall of resistance options or the loss of field power cards. He stated that the movement's leadership manages the battle with multiple tools, and determines its priorities based on accurate assessments of supreme national interests and field conditions on the ground.

Hamdan concluded his statements by emphasizing that the Palestinian resistance possesses wide options to deal with any future developments, and will not abandon its responsibility to defend the Palestinian people. He stressed that political efforts and mediations will remain as long as they serve national goals, while maintaining full readiness to respond to any escalation that the occupation may impose.

Martyrdom of leaders while performing their field duties is evidence of their direct involvement in managing the battle and not a defect in the movement's structure.