For over fifteen years, Hamas has stated its willingness to accept a two-state compromise with Israel, albeit a temporary one. However, Hamas has persistently refused to recognize Israel or renounce its armed fight against it. To Israel and many international observers, particularly in light of Hamas’ October 2021 attack that ignited the latest conflict in Gaza, this stance serves as evidence of the group’s unwavering determination to destroy Israel.
The United States and European nations have joined Israel in shunning Hamas, labeling it a terrorist organization. Some observers see signs of potential pragmatism in Hamas’ recent statements, which could open pathways to a resolution. However, the group’s attempts to reconcile its conflicting positions have raised suspicions due to its vague rhetoric.
Instead of outright peace, Hamas proposes long-term ‘truces’. While it has retreated from explicit pledges to annihilate Israel, it embraces ‘armed resistance’ and declares its commitment to fighting for the liberation of all ‘the land of Palestine’.
In a recent interview, senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya told The Associated Press that the group would be willing to lay down its weapons and transform into a political party if an independent Palestinian state were established within the pre-1967 borders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Although he reiterated Hamas’ support for a truce, this statement notably hinted at the possibility of disbanding its armed wing.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to destroy Hamas following the October 2021 attack on southern Israel. Netanyahu has consistently rejected the creation of a Palestinian state and, according to critics, has actively sought to undermine the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, which recognizes Israel.
A review of Hamas’ evolving stance reveals subtle nuances:
In 2006, following Hamas’ victory in Palestinian legislative elections, the group engaged in talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas regarding the formation of a unity government. During negotiations, Ismail Haniyeh, currently Hamas’ top political leader, stated that the group supported a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders ‘at this stage,’ but in exchange for a ceasefire, not recognition. Ultimately, the two sides reached an agreement where the unity government, including Hamas, would ‘respect’ the Palestinian Authority’s peace accords with Israel. This formula allowed Hamas to avoid explicitly accepting the accords and recognizing Israel.
Unsurprisingly, Israel and the U.S. declined to acknowledge the unity government and imposed economic sanctions. The government swiftly collapsed amidst clashes between Hamas and Abbas’ Fatah faction, culminating in Hamas’ takeover of Gaza in 2007.
In 2008, then-political head of Hamas Khaled Mashaal indicated that the group would accept a state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside a 10-year truce with Israel. While he rejected ever recognizing Israel, Mashaal suggested that Hamas might consent to a permanent peace agreement if Palestinians approved it through a referendum.
Hamas and Abbas’ Palestinian Authority have engaged in multiple rounds of unity talks since then, often resulting in varying formulations of Hamas’ position. Each time, these efforts have been thwarted by the factions’ bitter rivalry and the West’s refusal to engage with any government that includes Hamas unless it explicitly recognizes Israel.
In 2017, after years of internal deliberations, Hamas unveiled a new political platform that significantly altered its tone compared to its original charter, issued in 1988. The 1988 charter framed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in starkly religious terms, referring to ‘our struggle against the Jews’ and asserting that the land belonged solely to Muslims. It declared that ‘jihad,’ or holy war, was the only means to resolve the Palestinian issue.
The 2017 document abandoned much of this religious and antisemitic rhetoric, instead presenting Hamas’ cause in terms of human rights, including the right of refugees to return and the right to resist occupation. It clarified that its fight was not against Jews but against Zionism, which it condemned as a ‘colonial’ project that had seized Palestinian land and suppressed their freedoms.
The document also enshrined Hamas’ quasi-acceptance of a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It stated that such a state, with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of Palestinian refugees, was a ‘national consensus.’ However, it maintained its rejection of ‘any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.’ This territory encompasses present-day Israel, and in the context of Hamas’ agenda, such language is widely interpreted as a call for Israel’s destruction.
Follow AP’s war coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war
