For months, the Hamas leaders defended the decision of the militant group to launch on October 7, 2023, an attack on Israel, although it lit a devastating Israeli offensive that killed tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza and reduced the territory of demolition.
Hamas proclaimed a “victory” over Israel, and some of his officials vowed that their fighters would perform several attacks in October 7th.
But now one of the main Hamas officials is publicly expressed by reservations because of the attack, which also touched the humanitarian crisis that displaced almost two million and led to a critical lack of food and health care.
Mousa Abu Marzouk, head of the Qatar -based Katar Office in Qatar, said in an interview with the New York Times not to support the attack that he knew about desolation, it would appear on Gaza. Knowing the consequences, he said, he would prevent him “attack.
Mr. Abu Marzouk said That he was not informed of specific plans for the October 7th, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed and about 250 took hostages, but that he and other political leaders supported their entire Strategy for Israel’s attack.
“If what had happened was expected, there would be no October 7th,” as far as he is concerned, he said.
He also suggested that there was a willingness in Hamas to negotiate the future of the Gaza group weapons – which was a convenient place in negotiations with Israel – occupying the place rejected by other Hamas officials. The compromise can help Hamas and Israel avoid reconstruction of the war, analysts say. Israel said he wanted Hamas to dismantle his military abilities.
Mr. Abu Marzouk, 74, the first leader of the Hamas Political Office in the 1990s, presented objections in a telephone conversation on Friday.
It is unclear to what extent Mr. Abu Marzouk’s views are shared on October 7th by other Hamas leaders, or if they have an attempt to influence negotiations with Israel or put pressure on fellow leaders within a militant group. Other Hamas leaders, especially those who are closely related to Iran and the Lebanese militant group of Hezbollah, are prone to take over the heavier line.
In a statement published after the announcement, Hamas said that the comments attributed to Mr. Abu Marzouku were “incorrect” and taken out of context. He also said that Hamas’ senior official called the attack on October 7 “with the expression of our people’s rights to resist and reject the siege, occupation and settlement.”
The statement added that Mr. Abu Marzouk confirmed the group of the group that “weapons of resistance” could not be renounced as long as “there is an occupation of our country.”
His comments suggest that there are differences between the Hamas officers across the party on October 7th and its consequences. They also indicate that the frustrations of Palestinians in Gaza who say that the attack made them endure extraordinary suffering have some influence within Hamas’s leadership.
Mr. Abu Marzouk’s comments were similar to those made by Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, after the war of 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah. The extent of the destruction in that conflict was brought by Mr. Nasrallah to give up That his group would not abduct and kill several Israeli soldiers at the time that he knew he would start such a strong answer.
In the coming days, it is expected that Israel and Hamas will start a discussion on the second phase of a frightened fire in Gaza, which requires a permanent end of the fight, a completely Israeli withdrawal and release of more Israeli hostages and Palestinians prisoners. However, the delays in the launch of these conversations, along with the disputes over the implementation of the first phase, enhanced the fear that the truce could fall apart and the war could be restarted.
Mr. Abu Marzouk, who has lived in the United States for years, has long been considered to be one of the more pragmatic figures in Hamas. The war requested a large price of his family, with his 77-year-old brother Yosef killed in the fight.
“He’s not a nihilist,” said Stanley Cohen, a lawyer and a longtime friend of Mr. Abu Marzouk based in New York. “He would not support any actions he believed would bring an unprecedented, wholesale retaliation by anyone about people.”
Mr. Abu Marzouk said that Hamas’s survival in the war against Israel was a “kind of victory”. He also compared Hamas with an average person who fought against Mike Tyson, a former heavyweight boxer champion: If an unbroken Novak survived Mr. Tyson’s shots, people would say he was the winner, he said.
Absolutely, he said it would be “unacceptable” to claim that Hamas won, especially given the proportions of what Israel inflicted on Gazi.
“We’re talking about a party who lost control of herself and revenge against everything,” he said, referring to Israel. “This is not under any conditions.”
The Israeli army claimed that she had implemented her air and ground campaigns in Gaza in accordance with international law and that she had committed the attacks against Hamas, which had been determined by the terrorist group of the United States and other countries. But legal experts accused Israel of using force in a way that resulted in the death of too many civilians.
Mr. Abu Marzouk also suggested that there is a certain openness to the Hamas leadership to negotiate the future of the Gaza group weapons, which is a thorny question they said to be other Hamas officials outside the borders.
“We’re ready to talk about every question,” he said, when asked about weapons. “Any problem that is set on the table, we need to talk about it.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel insisted that his country would not end the war with Hamas without dismantling the ruling and military capabilities of the group. While Hamas expressed his willingness to recognize civilian management in Gaza, he refused to give up weapons.
Mr. Abu Marzouk’s remarks seem to have contradicted those from Osama Hamdan, another Hamas official, who told the conference in Doha, Qatar in the middle of this month, that “resistance weapon” is not ready for discussion, it seems to be excluded.
Asked about Mr. Hamdan’s statements, Mr. Abu Marzouk said no one could ask the agenda on his own.
Ibrahim Madhoun, an analyst close to Hamas, said that there are more views on important issues within the group, but when his institutions made a decision, they all stood behind it.
Since the ceasefire first entered into force on January 19, Hamas Fighters paraudes around Gaza’s rifles-liability of the message to Israel, the international community and Palestinians that the group is still in control.
Mr. Abu Marzouk refused to answer certain questions about the possible compromises about the issue of Hamas’s weapons. These compromises may include Hamas’s weapons storage in internationally controlled objects, accepting the abandonment of the renovation of your tunnel network and a rocket arsenal or stopping the fighter employment. Disarness, experts say, is unlikely.
As conversations about the second phase of the fed, Israeli and American officials are increasingly talking about the extension of the first phase.
The publication of some other hostages and prisoners during the extension of the first phase, added Mr. Abu Marzouk. But he explained that, under any circumstances, Hamas would demand a lot more prisoners in exchange for each hostage, because the group believes that the remaining hostages of Israel were soldiers. He mentioned 500 and 1,000 prisoners for each hostage.
Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners were released during the first phase, but the number of prisoners released by hostage was generally not exceeding 50.
Mr. Abu Marzouk said that Hamas was also open to letting all the hostages at the same time, if Israel was willing to free thousands of Palestinians in his prisons, end the war and withdraw from Gaza.
“We’re ready to have a comprehensive contract,” he said.
Israeli officials have previously rejected proposals for exchanging all hostages for all prisoners.
Abu Bakr Bashir Contributing to reporting this article.
