Senior Hamas official Bassem Naim has sharply criticized Board of Peace High Representative Nickolay Mladenov over recent remarks at the United Nations Security Council urging international pressure for Hamas to disarm. As reported by the Times of Israel, Mladenov linked the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from Gaza and post-war reconstruction efforts in the Strip to Hamas’s agreement to disarm.
According to the Times of Israel, Naim issued a statement rejecting this conditionality and framing Mladenov’s position as a departure from previously understood arrangements. Naim described Mladenov as attempting to be “more royal than the king himself,” accusing him of exceeding his mandate as an envoy.
How did Hamas respond to the envoy’s proposal?
In what was described as Hamas’s first response to Mladenov’s disclosure of principles in a disarmament proposal recently submitted by mediators, Naim argued that conditioning reconstruction and IDF withdrawal on disarmament contradicts earlier understandings. According to the Times of Israel, he claimed that this stance “reverses the course of events” in a way that serves “the agendas of the occupation.”
Naim asserted that Israel had not implemented “any” part of the first phase of an agreement and had provided no guarantees regarding future commitments, arguing that this undermined the basis for adding new conditions. He further alleged that Mladenov’s approach overlooks these unfulfilled obligations while demanding additional concessions from Hamas.
Supporting details and quoted statements
According to the Times of Israel, Naim accused Mladenov of acting “on behalf of Netanyahu and his fascist government, rather than truly serving as an envoy for a board that purports to be the Board of Peace.” Naim also criticized the envoy for warning of a potential return to war, framing this as a threat directed at Palestinians.
Naim took issue with Mladenov’s reported reluctance to assign blame to either side for ceasefire violations, highlighting casualty figures cited by the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza. The ministry has reported that 750 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli strikes since a truce was announced in October, without distinguishing between civilians and combatants.
In his statement, Naim claimed Mladenov was seeking to “appease the Americans and the Israelis.” He added that this approach had produced “nothing but catastrophes,” arguing that it had emboldened Israeli actions and failed to provide security or stability “within the region or beyond.”
What are the implications and possible next steps?
According to the Times of Israel, Naim’s comments signal Hamas’s rejection of making disarmament a precondition for Gaza’s reconstruction and IDF withdrawal. The criticism also underscores tensions between Hamas and international mediators over the framework for implementing ceasefire-related arrangements in Gaza.
Naim’s focus on alleged non-implementation of earlier agreement phases suggests that Hamas may continue to insist on prior commitments being fulfilled before accepting new conditions. His remarks indicate that future diplomatic efforts by envoys such as Mladenov could face resistance if they are perceived by Hamas as aligning too closely with Israeli or Western positions.
The statement closes with Naim arguing that the current approach has failed to secure stability or security for any parties involved, signaling continued skepticism toward existing mediation strategies. This stance may shape Hamas’s posture in upcoming discussions on ceasefire enforcement, reconstruction mechanisms, and security arrangements in Gaza.
In sum, Bassem Naim’s statement, as reported by the Times of Israel, reflects Hamas’s firm opposition to tying Gaza’s reconstruction and Israeli withdrawal to its disarmament and intensifies criticism of the role played by the Board of Peace envoy in ongoing diplomatic efforts.
