Hamas, through a senior official, stated its readiness to enter a cease-fire of five years or more with Israel and transition into a political entity if an independent Palestinian state is established along pre-1967 borders. The official, Khalil al-Hayya, considered Sinwar’s right hand, expressed these views during a recent interview amidst stalled cease-fire negotiations.
Al-Hayya indicated this would only be a temporary stance until Palestinians retain their “historic right to all Palestinian lands.” The Palestinian politician suggested Hamas’ willingness to join the Palestine Liberation Organization and form a unified government for Gaza and the West Bank and the dissolution of its military wing. Despite the devastation caused by recent hostilities, Al-Hayya dismissed Israeli attempts to eradicate Hamas but spoke about a possible truce soon.
Dr. Ghassan Khatib, a lecturer at Birzeit’s University and former minister of labor for the Palestinian Authority, provided his perspective to The Media Line. “It’s worth waiting to see if this statement reflects a significant shift,” he noted, highlighting a common inconsistency between individual remarks by Hamas leaders and the group’s official stance.
Dr. Khatib further explained the internal dynamics within Hamas: “The statement can also reflect dissent and the debate within Hamas. Different leaders have different views, but it could also be a tactic, considering the imminent threat of the Israeli army to enter Rafah.”
He added that while the promise to dissolve the military wing and pursue a sovereign state was notable, “Hamas being willing to put its guns down isn’t something you hear every day. Dissolving the military wing of Hamas and falling in line with a Sovereign Palestinian State on the 1967 borders would bring a powerful change.”
“Whatever the reasons they make this statement now, it’s important to dialogue with Hamas because they are a very relevant part of Palestinian internal politics. Whether the Israelis like it or not, that’s the fact. Even if the statement made by Al-Hayya has conditions unlikely to be accepted by Israel, it is important to continue the dialogue, and this is also true for America and other Western countries,” he concluded.
Natural skepticism
While Dr. Khatib emphasizes the importance of dialogue with Hamas despite skepticism about their intentions, some suggest a more cautious perspective, questioning the sincerity of Hamas’ statements and suggesting that their motives may be influenced by the immediate threat of Israeli military action.
Chuck Freilich, former deputy national security adviser and senior fellow in INSS, told The Media Line, “Hamas is aware of its imminent demise if the IDF enters Rafah. Making remarkable statements, such as the one made by Al-Hayya, gives them more time and feeds into the narrative believed by their supporters worldwide. Still, Israeli leaders should pursue this dialogue in the future if we have a different government.”
“If this statement made by Al-Hayya is serious, then they should be open to dialogue after the Israeli conducts its plans to go into Rafah. It’s doubtful that Israel would entertain such dialogue, as it remains committed to dismantling Hamas. After Hamas is removed from Rafah, then the Palestinians should announce an initiative with their top leaders or with a formal declaration,” concluded Chuck Freilich.
While Hamas has previously maintained a hardline stance against Israel, this shift towards a potential two-state solution represents a notable concession. However, it remains unclear if this signifies a permanent resolution to the conflict or merely an interim step toward Hamas’ longstanding goal of Israel’s destruction.
Israel nor the Palestinian Authority have yet to comment.
