Hamas 67

Every politician has the right to gambit, and politics is the art of the possible. However, a particular strategy must be pursued. Regardless of how surprising one tries to make his moves, they must serve a broader goal that every conscious person agrees with. They cannot be volatile reactions that result in blood and destruction.
That is what Hamas is doing now, with its contradictory statements about the two-state solution, accepting the 1967 borders, and a desire to come under the umbrella of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas has repeatedly made these commitments and then denied having done so since the seventh of October.
At the beginning of the war in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh said he was ready to sit at the negotiation table and discuss the two-state solution. Then, Hamas "poured cold water" on those statements and behaved as though they had never been made. It even launched a campaign accusing everyone who commented on Haniyeh's statements of being a traitor.
Then, in an interview with "Al-Monitor", Mousa Abu Marzook said that the movement "wants to be a part of the Palestine Liberation Organization and will respect the organization's commitments," suggesting that Hamas might recognize Israel.
Shortly after this interview, Abu Marzouk took to "X" (formerly Twitter) to say that his statements had been "misunderstood", emphasizing that Hamas does not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and would not “compromise on the rights of our Palestinian people. We confirm that the resistance will continue until liberation and return."
Just last week, Hamas leader Khalil Al-Hayya, in an interview with the American Associated Press in Istanbul said that Hamas wants to join the Palestine Liberation Organization, led by the rival faction Fatah, to form a unified government for Gaza and the West Bank. He added that Hamas would accept "a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the return of Palestinian refugees in accordance with the international resolutions, along the pre-1967 border with Israel." "If this happens, the military wing of the group will dissolve."
This, of course, implies recognition of Israel. So far, Hamas has not denied or justified his statements. I don't believe that denying them would be of any value since the interview was filmed. Indeed, such a denial would be worth something only to its ideological followers and devotees, who have no practical impact on the ground.
Accordingly, these contradictions have a hallmark of Hamas. Even if Hamas traveled to China for discussions with Fatah or the Palestinian Authority- their nineteenth meeting so far with more significant meetings having been held previously in Makkah. Following the latter, Hamas walked back on its commitments in Gaza, throwing PA officials off of buildings, and the rest of the story is well-known.
Some might say that Yasser Arafat had taken similarly contradictory positions and also walked back on statements. That is true, and we all know the consequences of those actions. The question now is whether we want to repeat this experience and miss opportunities again.
The situation today is dire. The maps have changed, Gaza has been ravaged, and its people have been killed and displaced. Hamas is now trying to preserve what remains of its authority and protect its remaining leaders, both inside and outside, not to further the Palestinian cause.
Thus, playing on Hamas’s acceptance of a Palestinian state and their claims to want to come under the PA umbrella now, would not grant Hamas room to maneuver in as much as it would affirm that it is not a serious movement. It would weaken its negotiating position, regardless of what is said and will be said.