> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://otherwise.ghost.io/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# hudna, Hamas’s signal to the world
- URL: https://otherwise.ghost.io/hudna-hamass-signal-to-the-world/
- Published: 2025-10-11T21:49:35.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-17T13:43:19.000Z
- Author: Khaled Salih
- Tags: Newsletter, #Migrated-1792244264359, #Import 2026-10-17 14:38

*By Khaled Salih*

> “Eric Hobsbawm was an English historian who was probably one of the last true Marxists —and he was totally unrepentant about it at that. One of his parting shots through the 1980s was that if Marxism had killed millions, it would have been worth it if they had achieved socialism.” Chris Hall

In October 2025, a U.S.-brokered ceasefire silenced the guns after two years of devastating war between Israel and Hamas. In moments of apparent joy, when the guns fall silent and diplomacy claims success, the real challenge is not only to celebrate but also to discern: to separate the signal from the noise. Amid the flood of political declarations and media narratives surrounding the October 2025 ceasefire, the essential warning risks being lost. The noise is the language of peace treaties, press briefings, and mutual congratulations; the signal lies deeper, in the ideological grammar and strategic intent that shape Hamas’s actions. To read this ceasefire correctly is to recognize it not as an end, but as a pause: an intentional *hudna* in a larger, unbroken conflict. Yet even as we search for clarity, we must not lose sight of the profound moral weight of the hostages’ release, an act that, despite its political entanglements and the tragedy of those murdered in captivity, remains a moment that demands human elevation above all else. Only by cutting through the surrounding noise can we begin to understand what this silence truly communicates.

While we celebrate a hard-won peace, a granular analysis of Hamas’s own ideological pronouncements reveals a starkly different reality: this is not a prelude to peace, but a meticulously planned strategic pause, a *hudna*in what they define as a generational, existential struggle. This interpretation is not conjecture; it is subtly communicated in the ideological framing and tactical offers of its senior leadership, particularly Basem Naim.

This essay will systematically deconstruct the ideological framework underpinning Hamas’s acceptance of the ceasefire, contrast it with the Israeli narrative of a decisive victory achieved through overwhelming power, and argue that these irreconcilable worldviews render the peace inherently fragile and temporary. To understand the precariousness of this moment, one must first examine the uncompromising ideological bedrock of Hamas’s position, which defines the absolute limits of any negotiated settlement.

To interpret Hamas’s strategic actions, one must first understand its core ideology. Beyond political maneuvering, the conflict is framed by Hamas in existential and religious terms, a worldview that establishes the non-negotiable parameters of any agreement. This theological framing deliberately forecloses any possibility of compromise or coexistence, transforming the war from a political dispute into a divine mandate where peace is merely a prelude to the next battle.

This uncompromising perspective was articulated with chilling clarity by senior Hamas official Fawzi Barhoum on the second anniversary of the October 7th attack. He framed the assault not as a singular event but as the dawn of the “eternal al-aqsa flood battle,” a “major turning point” that he claimed “began the real countdown to the end of \[the Zionist occupation’s\] existence on earth.” To underscore this divine mandate, Barhoum invoked a *qur’ān* verse, framing the violence as a sacred obligation: *“Kill them, allāh will torment them by your hands, disgrace them, give you victory over them, and heal the hearts of the kāfirs.”*

This language defines the war as a step toward the enemy’s complete annihilation, establishing a worldview where any cessation of hostilities is purely tactical. It is an ideology of total victory, where the only acceptable outcome is the erasure of the opponent. This foundational belief directly informs Hamas’s non-negotiable stance on the most critical element of the current ceasefire: disarmament.

The strategic application of Hamas’s “eternal war” ideology is most clearly revealed in its unwavering position on disarmament. That Hamas is negotiating from a position of relative weakness, isolated from key allies like Qatar and Turkey and forced into what war analyst Andrew Fox calls “difficult compromises”, only strengthens this interpretation. Their refusal to disarm is not a sign of strength, but a tactical necessity for a weakened actor seeking to regroup. Statements of senior Hamas official Basem Naim reframe the ceasefire not as a resolution, but as a classic *hudna*: a temporary armistice rooted in *muslim* strategic tradition, employed by a disadvantaged force to rearm and prepare for a future confrontation.

In an interview with Sky News, Naim deconstructed Hamas’s stance, making the group’s intentions unambiguous:

> “Our weapons are going to be handed over only to the hands of a Palestinian state and our fighters can be integrated into the Palestinian national army… before that no one has right to deny us the right to resist the occupation by all means.”

If it happens, it will be a conditional disarmament.

When asked directly if Hamas would refuse to disarm now as required by the agreement, his reply was an unequivocal affirmation of defiance: “Yes, we are not going to be disarmed as long as we are not sure that this will lead by any other means to have an independent self-sovereign state which is able to defend itself.”

Instead of permanent disarmament, Naim communicated the classic *muslim* armistice: “We can offer any other modality like a *hudna* or a ceasefire for five, six, seven, ten years where arms are stand still.” It is clearly a temporary truce for Hamas.

Naim’s statements lay bare the tactical nature of Hamas’s engagement. For the movement, retaining its arms is not merely a strategic choice; it is essential to its identity as a “liberation movement” and the primary instrument for continuing its generational struggle. This interpretation stands in stark contrast to the diametrically opposed narrative being promulgated by Israeli leadership.

From the Israeli government’s perspective, the ceasefire is not a truce but the successful culmination of a two-year military and diplomatic campaign. This narrative frames the agreement as a victory achieved through the methodical application of force, which ultimately compelled Hamas to capitulate under the weight of U.S.-led pressure.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu centered his declaration of victory on the return of hostages, which he described as the primary war aim, achieved through a strategy of “combined military and diplomatic pressure.” He gave specific and prominent credit to the American administration, noting the “extraordinary help from President Trump and his team, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.”

This portrayal of the deal as a forced capitulation was reinforced by former Ambassador Michael Oren. He characterized the 20-point plan not as a compromise but as “overwhelmingly pro-Israel” and effectively a *“*surrender document” for Hamas. This view is predicated on the idea that Hamas was isolated and forced to the negotiating table. As Oren stated, “You don’t bring peace without power,” linking the agreement directly to a revival of *“*pax Americana” under President Trump’s leadership.

However, a critical point of friction exists within this victory narrative. Oren himself acknowledged the fundamental challenge that lies ahead: forcing Hamas to disarm. He admitted that this demand “goes against the DNA of Hamas.” This admission from a key architect of the victory narrative is critical; it concedes that while Israel may have won the battle, it has not altered the fundamental nature of its adversary, whose entire identity is predicated on armed struggle. This highlights the need for an independent perspective to reconcile these clashing worldviews.

Moving beyond the political declarations of victory and resistance, Andrew Fox provides a crucial third voice, examining the practical realities and societal sentiments that expose the ceasefire’s profound fragility.

Fox characterizes the deal not as a clear-cut victory for either side but as an “inevitable negotiated settlement” that required “painful concessions” from both Israel and Hamas. More disturbing, however, is his assessment of popular sentiment in Gaza. On the night the ceasefire was announced, celebrants were heard chanting:

> *“khaybar, khaybar ya yahud, jaish muḥammad sa-ya’ud!”* (khaybar, khaybar, O Jews, *muḥammad*’s army will return!).

This slogan harks back to the 7th-century battle where *muslim* armies defeated and expelled the Jewish tribes of Khaybar, and its modern use is an unambiguous call for a final, violent confrontation. Fox rightly notes this “direct threat of violence against Jews” indicates that “reconciliation...feels heartbreakingly distant.” These are not the chants of a populace yearning for peace; this is the grassroots echo of Fawzi Barhoum’s call for an “eternal al-aqsa flood,” demonstrating that Hamas’s eliminationist ideology is not merely top-down rhetoric but a resonant force on the Gazan street.

Fox’s assessment of the paradoxical post-war reality for each actor further underscores the messy, unresolved nature of the conflict:

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/d6/2c/d62cdd13-a476-41c5-8f2c-29270c99d95d/content/images/2026/10/29cbf817-cc4a-4082-99b2-44ac5f2d0bbb_1920x1080-heic.jpg)

This complex ledger of gains and losses leads Fox to his ultimate question: whether this ceasefire is a “turning point, or just a pause before the next storm.” His analysis strongly supports the conclusion that this is merely a pause, aligning perfectly with Hamas’s strategic posture.

The October 2025 ceasefire, while ending the immediate bloodshed, has failed to resolve the fundamental conflict. Instead, it has exposed an unbridgeable chasm between the worldviews of Hamas and Israel, leaving the region in a state of fragile and temporary respite.

This divide is starkly illustrated by juxtaposing the core, irreconcilable positions. On one hand, Fawzi Barhoum’s call for the “end of \[the Zionist occupation’s\] existence on earth” and Basem Naim’s explicit refusal to disarm frame the conflict as an eternal religious struggle. On the other, Michael Oren’s description of the agreement as a “surrender document” for Hamas reflects a belief that military and diplomatic power can force a conclusive end to hostilities.

Israel’s victory, built on the tangible return of hostages, rests on a politically fragile foundation susceptible to internal dissent and global isolation. In stark contrast, Hamas’s narrative, rooted in an ideology of martyrdom, is strategically sellable, tragically capable of absorbing catastrophic material loss, including over 67,000 deaths and the ruin of Gaza, as a testament to its disregard to human life. In this asymmetric conflict of narratives, ideology proves more prone to revival than reality, making Hamas’s interpretation of the ceasefire as a temporary *hudna* the more strategically flexible.

Ultimately, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests this ceasefire is not a turning point toward peace, but a tactical reloading, a fragile, temporary pause before the inevitable next storm.

**Sources:**

Yada Hakim, 20251010, “Hamas official thanks Donald Trump for peace deal but warns Tony Blair not welcome.” [www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRHWDNNZmH4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRHWDNNZmH4&ref=otherwise.ghost.io)

Chris Hall, 20251010, “Defining Democracy. Liberalism, Freedom, Majority: How three ubiquitous terms mean entirely different things to different people.”

[Defining DemocracyFOREWORD BY THE EDITOR (Daniel Clarke-Serret)![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/d6/2c/d62cdd13-a476-41c5-8f2c-29270c99d95d/content/images/2026/10/d05f5d59-3535-4af4-bb32-c18f5d79e338_255x255-2.png)Guerre and Shalom](https://danielclarkeserret.substack.com/p/defining-democracy)

Memri, 20251003, “Senior Hamas Official Mousa Abu Marzouk On Trump’s Gaza Plan: Recovering All The Hostages’ Bodies Within 72 Hours Is Inconceivable – For Some, It Could Take Months; Gaza Should Be Terror-Free But Hamas Is Not A Terrorist Organization” [https://www.memri.org/tv/mousa-abu-marzouk-trump-gaza-plan-hostages-terror-free](https://www.memri.org/tv/mousa-abu-marzouk-trump-gaza-plan-hostages-terror-free?ref=otherwise.ghost.io)

Memri, 20251009, “Top Hamas Official Fawzi Barhoum On Second Anniversary Of October 7: The ‘Eternal Al-Aqsa Flood’ Started The Countdown To The End Of The Zionist Occupation’s Existence On Earth.” [https://www.memri.org/reports/top-hamas-official-fawzi-barhoum-second-anniversary-october-7-eternal-al-aqsa-flood-started](https://www.memri.org/reports/top-hamas-official-fawzi-barhoum-second-anniversary-october-7-eternal-al-aqsa-flood-started?ref=otherwise.ghost.io)

Anas al-Sharif, 20251009, “Urgent: A videoed statement by the head of the Hamas movement, Khalil al-Hayya, in which he officially announces the agreement to stop the Israeli genocide war on Gaza,” [https://x.com/AnasAlSharif0/status/1976351818692399603](https://x.com/AnasAlSharif0/status/1976351818692399603?ref=otherwise.ghost.io)