By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A senior Hamas official defended the October 7 attacks on Israel, claiming it created a “golden moment” for the Palestinian cause despite the tens of thousands of deaths in Gaza. In a recent interview, Ghazi Hamad highlighted increased international condemnation of Israel and growing recognition of Palestinian statehood, while refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences faced by civilians in Gaza. He further dismissed criticism of Hamas and maintained the group’s commitment to its armed resistance, even as calls for disarmament grow and negotiations remain stalled. The official also accused the U.S. of bias in mediating the conflict and expressed the group’s refusal to surrender.
Read the original article here
Let’s dissect this pronouncement: A senior Hamas official defends the “high price” of October 7th for Palestinians, labeling the attack a “golden moment.” Honestly, it’s a gut punch, isn’t it? To hear someone, a “leader,” effectively say the suffering and death of their own people was worth it…it’s a chilling testament to a warped perspective.
The core of this sentiment is that the horrific events of October 7th were a strategic victory, a calculated move that has somehow advanced the cause of the Palestinians. The rationale, however twisted, seems to be that the attack has galvanized international attention, perhaps leading to greater pressure on Israel. It’s a belief that the tragedy has opened a path, even if paved with the lives of civilians, towards a more favorable outcome.
The response, not surprisingly, has been a mix of outrage and disbelief. The idea that anyone could view such carnage as a “golden moment” is deeply offensive. Many point out the obvious: the attack has led to further destruction, displacement, and loss of life in Gaza, making an already dire situation even worse. There is a strong feeling that Hamas’s actions are self-serving, with little regard for the Palestinian people’s well-being. The implication being, the “golden moment” is perhaps more personal to the official, and potentially for other Hamas leaders, rather than for the average Palestinian.
The interviewer’s attempt to confront the official with images of suffering Palestinians who were pleading for peace highlights a key disconnect. The official, according to reports, seemed more interested in reiterating his narrative, even as his people’s pleas for respite were dismissed. The comments also reveal a cynicism about the ultimate goals, a sense that the true aim is not simply a Palestinian state, but rather the elimination of Israel.
The fallout from this perspective is, of course, intense. The world sees the attack not as a strategic masterstroke, but as an act of terrorism, making any negotiation that much more difficult. The claim that the “golden moment” is for creating a path to a better future becomes less credible when the actions taken show a lack of any actual desire for such a future. The argument that the West, in some manner, is complicit is also a troubling one. The idea that international actors are somehow playing into Hamas’s hands adds fuel to the criticism.
There’s also a very dark undercurrent to this entire situation, where the official’s comments suggest a complete disregard for the human cost. His priorities are not the everyday suffering of the people, but a political objective at whatever cost. He seems more focused on the perceived “wins” of the situation, even if it’s at the cost of innocent lives, than the actual lives of the population he claims to lead.
The question of long-term outcomes hangs heavy. The assertion that this is a “golden moment” is highly questionable. The international landscape seems unlikely to shift in the way Hamas would desire, and historical precedent indicates that countries will move on, and Israel’s position will be reinforced.
Ultimately, this “golden moment” rhetoric reveals a disturbing level of detachment from the reality of the suffering it has caused. The comments seem to confirm the worst fears: that the lives of Palestinians are viewed as expendable, and that the pursuit of a radical agenda takes precedence over the well-being of the people. It underscores the deep divisions that have poisoned the region for decades, and the urgent need for a different path forward, one that prioritizes peace, justice, and the lives of all involved.