In a strongly worded statement released on Sunday, September 28, 2025, the Palestinian group Hamas declared former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as “an unwelcome figure in the Palestinian context.” The group emphasized that it has not received any formal ceasefire proposals through mediators, addressing ongoing speculation about international efforts to resolve the conflict in the Gaza Strip. The remarks, attributed to senior Hamas political bureau member Husam Badran and published on the group’s Telegram channel, were a direct response to a report by Israel’s Haaretz newspaper. The report, citing an unnamed Arab political source, claimed that the United States had proposed a plan to appoint Blair to lead a temporary administration in Gaza.
Hamas’ rejection of Blair’s potential involvement was unequivocal, with Badran describing the association of any plan with the former British leader as “an ominous sign for the Palestinian people.” He went further, labeling Blair as a “negative figure” who, in his view, deserves to face international courts for his actions, particularly his role in the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011. Badran’s rhetoric escalated as he referred to Blair as “the devil’s brother,” asserting that Blair has “brought nothing good to the Palestinian cause, the Arabs, or the Muslims.” According to Badran, Blair’s history is marked by a “criminal, destructive role” that has been widely recognized for years. This sharp condemnation reflects deep-seated distrust among Hamas leaders toward Blair, rooted in his political legacy and perceived alignment with Western policies that many Palestinians view as detrimental to their cause.
Badran’s statement also underscored Hamas’ position that the governance of Palestinian affairs, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, is an internal matter that must be resolved through national consensus. He firmly rejected the idea of external imposition by regional or international parties, asserting, “The Palestinian people are capable of managing themselves; we have the resources and expertise to run our own affairs and our relations with the region and the world.” This assertion of self-determination highlights Hamas’ broader narrative of resisting foreign influence in Palestinian governance, a recurring theme in the group’s rhetoric amid ongoing conflict and international diplomatic efforts.
The statement revealed a significant internal decision made by Hamas’ leadership in December 2023, prior to the escalation of the current war and the widespread destruction in Gaza. According to Badran, Hamas decided it no longer wished to govern Gaza unilaterally, a position communicated to other Palestinian factions and friendly states. This decision suggests a willingness to engage in broader Palestinian cooperation, potentially involving other groups like Fatah or smaller factions, to share governance responsibilities. However, Badran did not elaborate on the specifics of how such a consensus might be achieved or what form a shared governance structure might take, leaving open questions about the practical implementation of this policy shift.
Regarding ceasefire negotiations, Badran clarified that Hamas has not received any official proposals through established mediation channels, which typically involve countries like Egypt or Qatar. He dismissed reports of ceasefire initiatives as mere media speculation, noting that such proposals—whether attributed to US President Donald Trump or other figures—have not been formally conveyed to Hamas. “Everything being circulated comes only through the media,” Badran stated, highlighting a pattern where ideas floated by Washington, often in coordination with Israel, take time to materialize into concrete proposals. This statement aligns with Hamas’ broader skepticism of US-led initiatives, which the group often perceives as biased toward Israeli interests.
Hamas’ remarks followed a separate statement earlier on Sunday, which noted that ceasefire talks have been stalled since an alleged Israeli assassination attempt targeting Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, on September 9, 2025. The group stated that no new proposals have been received since that incident, further complicating efforts to negotiate a truce. The Doha incident, which Hamas described as a failed assassination attempt, has not been independently verified in the provided context, but it underscores the ongoing tensions and security concerns surrounding Hamas’ leadership, even in exile.
The Haaretz report that sparked Hamas’ response cited an Arab political source claiming that the US had devised a plan to install Tony Blair as the head of a temporary administration in Gaza. Such a proposal, if true, would represent a significant international intervention in the governance of the war-torn enclave. However, the lack of formal communication to Hamas through mediators suggests that the plan may still be in the preliminary stages or possibly a trial balloon floated to gauge reactions. The idea of a temporary administration led by a figure like Blair, with his controversial legacy in the Middle East, is likely to face significant resistance not only from Hamas but also from other Palestinian factions and civil society groups.
The broader context of the Gaza conflict provides critical insight into the stakes of these developments. Since October 2023, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has resulted in catastrophic loss of life and widespread destruction. According to Hamas and other sources, the Israeli army has killed over 66,000 Palestinians, with the majority being women and children. The relentless bombardment has rendered much of Gaza uninhabitable, exacerbating a humanitarian crisis characterized by starvation, disease, and displacement. The scale of the devastation has drawn international condemnation, with the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Domestically, Netanyahu faces corruption charges that could lead to imprisonment if he is convicted, adding a layer of political complexity to his government’s handling of the war.
Hamas’ statement also referenced a recent diplomatic initiative by US President Donald Trump, who presented a 21-point plan to Arab and Muslim leaders during the 80th UN General Assembly in New York on September 23, 2025. The plan, aimed at ending Israel’s two-year war on Gaza, has not been publicly detailed in the provided information, but its mention suggests ongoing US efforts to broker a resolution. However, Hamas’ dismissal of media-driven narratives about ceasefire proposals indicates a lack of trust in such initiatives, particularly when they originate from Washington or are linked to figures like Blair.
On August 18, 2025, Hamas reportedly agreed to a mediator-proposed plan for a partial ceasefire and prisoner exchange, which aligned with an earlier initiative put forward by US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and approved by Israel. However, Israel’s failure to respond to this proposal has fueled accusations from the Israeli opposition and families of captives that Netanyahu is obstructing potential deals to prioritize his political survival. These families, desperate for the return of their relatives held in Gaza, have been vocal in their criticism of the Israeli government’s handling of the crisis.
The broader dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as reflected in Hamas’ statement, reveal a complex interplay of internal Palestinian politics, international diplomacy, and ongoing violence. Hamas’ rejection of Blair’s potential role underscores the group’s deep mistrust of Western figures associated with past interventions in the Middle East. Blair’s tenure as British Prime Minister, particularly his support for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, remains a lightning rod for criticism in the region. His subsequent role as a Middle East peace envoy for the Quartet (the UN, US, EU, and Russia) from 2007 to 2015 was also controversial, with many Palestinians viewing his efforts as ineffective or biased toward Israel.
The idea of a temporary administration in Gaza, whether led by Blair or another figure, raises significant questions about sovereignty, legitimacy, and practicality. Gaza’s governance has been a contentious issue since Hamas took control of the enclave in 2007, following a violent split with the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. The PA, recognized internationally as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, has had limited influence in Gaza, while Hamas has faced international isolation due to its designation as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, and others. Any attempt to establish a temporary administration would need to navigate these factional divides, as well as the broader Palestinian demand for self-determination.
Hamas’ assertion that it does not wish to govern Gaza alone is a notable shift, potentially opening the door to reconciliation with other Palestinian factions. However, achieving a national consensus in the current climate of war, destruction, and political fragmentation is a formidable challenge. The ongoing conflict has deepened divisions within Palestinian society, with Hamas and the PA often at odds over strategy and leadership. External actors, including the US, Israel, and regional powers like Egypt and Qatar, further complicate the landscape by pursuing their own agendas.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains a pressing concern, with the enclave facing unprecedented levels of destruction. The reported deaths of over 66,000 Palestinians, coupled with widespread starvation and disease, have created a dire situation that demands urgent international attention. The failure of ceasefire talks, whether due to Israeli inaction or Hamas’ skepticism, perpetuates this crisis, leaving millions of Palestinians in a state of perpetual suffering.
In conclusion, Hamas’ rejection of Tony Blair’s potential role in a Gaza administration and its denial of receiving ceasefire proposals reflect the group’s broader stance on Palestinian self-determination and distrust of external interventions. The ongoing war, coupled with internal Palestinian divisions and international diplomatic maneuvering, continues to shape the trajectory of the conflict. As the humanitarian toll mounts, the need for a viable resolution—whether through ceasefire negotiations or a reimagined governance structure—remains as urgent as ever. The path forward will require addressing not only the immediate crisis but also the deeper political and historical grievances that fuel the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
