Hamas negotiator: no regrets about October 7 attack, CNN interview
A Hamas negotiator involved in informal talks with Israel on behalf of the group’s political wing told CNN that Hamas does not regret the October 7 attack. Ghazi Hamad, who is taking part in peace negotiations with Israeli officials, said the assault and its deadly consequences are not something Hamas regrets.
What Hamad said in the interview
In the CNN interview, Hamad affirmed that Hamas leaders still stand by the strategy behind the attack and the broader conflict with Israel. He said that while the group regrets the suffering that civilians endure in any war, it does not express remorse for actions taken in what he described as a struggle against occupation and for political aims. He described the events of October 7 as a turning point in the Gaza-Israel standoff and emphasized that negotiations with Israel are ongoing within Hamas political framework.
The context: two years since the assault
The Oct 7 attacks, carried out by Hamas militants, resulted in the deaths of roughly 1,200 people in Israel and the abduction of more than 250 others, triggering a brutal Israeli military campaign in Gaza. The episodes set off a renewed, deeply polarized international debate about the path to peace and the terms of any potential ceasefire. The interview with Hamad arrives as international mediators push for pause in fighting and for humanitarian access to Gaza.
Implications for peace talks
Hamas assertion of no remorse for the attack complicates Western dominated narratives that connect ceasefire and aid to the creation of better conditions for Palestinian civilians. It underscores the difficulty of engaging in meaningful negotiations with a movement that frames its actions as part of a broader political struggle. Ghazi Hamad’s statements signal that for Hamas, talks with Israel coexist with a willingness to sustain hardline tactics and a readiness to revisit demands tied to the political status of Gaza, the right of return, or Palestinian sovereignty. For mediators, the challenge is to separate humanitarian concerns from the political red lines that Hamas asserts, while also preserving a path toward restraint and a durable ceasefire that could prevent further bloodshed.
International reaction and next steps
International reactions have largely reflected concern over the human toll and the risk of renewed violence in the absence of a credible framework for negotiations. While some governments hope for renewed diplomacy, others insist that Hamas must change its stance before any significant concessions are discussed. The CNN interview, featuring a prominent Hamas negotiator, adds a new layer to the ongoing dialogue and will likely fuel debate about the feasibility of a long term peace agreement in a volatile region.
Conclusion
As peace talks continue amid mutual distrust, the statements by Ghazi Hamad highlight the deep divisions that persist in the conflict. The question remains whether dialogue can translate into a durable arrangement that addresses security concerns for Israel while meeting Palestinian aspirations for sovereignty and humanitarian relief in Gaza.
