Why the U.S. must engage Hamas politically

By considering Hamas a terrorist organization, similar to how the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was considered as such until the late 1980’s, the U.S. government is losing out on a historic opportunity to bring about a path to peace and instead is pushing the Middle East towards regional paroxysm.

As the world watches on in horror at the ever-rising death toll in Gaza and a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions, it is now time for level heads to prevail and for us to look critically at Hamas as a political party. The U.S., along with the collective West, upholds that “Hamas must be eliminated,” rejecting draft resolutions presented at the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire in Gaza on the basis that Israel has a right to dismantle the Palestinian armed movements there.

The United States government upholds the attack of October 7 to be a testament to the terroristic nature of the Hamas leadership, but Israel’s disproportionate response that has resulted in a tragedy of much greater proportions is scarcely worthy of criticism in circles of Western power. In fact, the UK, U.S., and many EU states have given the Israeli military a carte blanche to displace millions of Palestinians, kill and injure over one hundred thousand while initially blocking all humanitarian aid for weeks and later letting in a trickle of the aid needed. With every hour that passes, the crimes unfolding inside the Gaza Strip make it more and more likely that the war will escalate on multiple fronts, perhaps dragging in the entire region to everyone’s detriment. This is why it is time to take a critical look at what history tells us about today and how we can move forward toward peace.

Hamas then and now

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) was originally founded in late 1987, following the eruption of the first Palestinian Intifada; a mass non-violent uprising across the occupied Palestinian territories. In its foundation, Hamas had essentially grown from a socially focused Islamic movement, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which was named the ‘Mujamma Islamiyya’ and was at first opposed to armed rebellion in the occupied territory, seeking instead to build up the Islamic civil society sector and to spread their Islamic ideology through deeds and education. 

In the late 1970’s and early to mid 1980’s, the Mujamma Islamiyya was in opposition – on the question of armed struggle – to what is the second most powerful armed movement in Gaza today; Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). While the PIJ movement, headed by its secretary general Fathi Shiqaqi, was convinced that the only viable option was an armed struggle, the leaders of the Mujamma Islamiyya argued that the time for this option was not upon the Palestinians. With the eruption of the Intifada, the visions of those who would become the Hamas leadership, namely the likes of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, dramatically changed. It is important to note the early competition between the ideologies of the Mujamma and PIJ, as they help distinguish Hamas as a party that is rooted in civil society and is, in essence, a political movement that is involved in the military sphere due to necessity, opposed to PIJ, which is a military movement involved in the political sphere.

Often today, the original Hamas charter is heavily quoted as proof that the political party’s nature is of a group solely dedicated to the eradication of Jews from Palestine, yet this discounts changes and the examples of pragmatism within the movement since 1988; when the original charter was published. Added to this is the fact that leaders within Hamas voiced disagreements with the initial charter’s spirit. In a Guardian interview published in September of 1988 with the founder of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, he is quoted as saying, “The best solution is to let all – Christians, Jews and Muslims – live in Palestine, in an Islamic state.” Although it is clear that this statement expresses the desire to end the Israeli State, this is a far cry from the conventionally accepted idea that Hamas is completely committed to the expulsion or murder of every Jewish person living in Palestine.

In fact, in 2017, Hamas adopted a new charter for its party, one which condemns antisemitism as a European phenomenon, as well as accepting – in theory – the idea of a two-state settlement along the 1967 borders, in accordance with UN resolution 242. The new Hamas charter explicitly states that it is a “Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement”, indicating that it is solely focused on reclaiming Palestinian territory, unlike groups like ISIS which seek to eradicate all modern states and create a worldwide system of tyrannical rule. Although Israel has gone to great lengths to link Hamas and ISIS, these two movements could not be more different.

Hamas and the U.S.

In 2006, Hamas won a landslide victory in the Palestinian National Authority legislative elections, beating its secular-nationalist opposition of the Fatah Party. Yet, despite the evolution within Hamas, which led to it running in a fair and democratic election, the Palestinian party was never given a chance to prove itself as a government in the occupied territory. Instead, the U.S. and Israel rejected the results of the democratic elections and imposed economic sanctions on the Hamas government. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who had personally monitored the elections, argued against Washington’s approach, stating the following:

“If you sponsor an election or promote democracy and freedom around the world, then when people make their own decision about their leaders, I think that all the governments should recognize that administration and let them form their government,” he said of the U.S. approach to Hamas.

Instead of listening to cooler heads, like Jimmy Carter, who had argued that the American government should “give Hamas a chance,” the very opposite approach was taken. The Bush administration had planned what Vanity Fair called ‘Iran Contra 2.0’, whereby the American government had implemented a secret initiative to remove the Hamas government in Gaza through a coup d’etat. The plan, which was spearheaded on the Palestinian side by the Fatah party’s Mohammed Dahlan – the former Palestinian Authority (PA) preventative security head – was preempted by Hamas in Gaza, leading to a Hamas takeover of the coastal enclave in 2007. Another disastrous outcome of the U.S. plot was that a violent civil war erupted between Hamas and Fatah in the occupied Palestinian territory.

Following this, the Israeli government imposed a comprehensive siege on the Gaza Strip, which was followed by successive military operations, the most notable coming in 2008/9, 2012, and 2014, all of which were fully backed by the U.S. government. Also, most of the first line of the Hamas leadership, who had started the movement back in 1987, were assassinated in indiscriminate bombing attacks on densely populated neighborhoods in Gaza; Ahmed Yassin, Saleh Shehadeh, and Abdel-Aziz Rantisi to name a few. Over time, Hamas and their rivals in Fatah – which had continued to receive financing from the U.S. to maintain limited control over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank – tried to reach an agreement at forming a unity government, coming close in 2014, prior to Israel launching an attack on the Gaza Strip that year.

Since 2006, there have been no democratic national elections in Palestine, and the U.S. government does not even attempt to appear supportive of such a step. This has led to a situation on the ground where there is no unified Palestinian leadership and hence makes it more difficult to reach any diplomatic solution to the conflict. In addition to this, the U.S. continues its economic sanctions against the Hamas government in Gaza and considers nearly every single Palestinian political party/movement/group to be a terrorist organization, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah.

Palestinians have not been allowed to practice democracy because every major political alternative to the Palestinian Authority is considered in the West to be a terrorist organization, and hence they will not be accepted as legitimate “peace partners.” This means that Palestinian people do not have the option of voting for any other party, whether they be secular-nationalists, socialists, or Islamic parties. They have not had any say on their fate, which has almost entirely been dictated by the Israeli government and U.S. decision-makers, along with those giving aid handouts.

Hamas as a political actor

It is not necessary that people agree with the tactics employed by the Hamas armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, but it is certainly important to understand what led up to the offensive on October 7. The context is important to understanding why it made sense, strategically and politically, for the Palestinian movement. 

As noted above, the Gaza Strip has been under a brutal and comprehensive siege for 17 years. This has created a situation where roughly 2.4 million people have been forced to live with one of the highest unemployment rates in the world while living in near unlivable conditions, for example, Gaza’s water supply is roughly 97% unfit for human consumption. It is also a majority child population, with over half of the besieged coastal enclave’s inhabitants being under the age of 18. The blockade has robbed Hamas of the ability to function as a proper government in many respects; as the bare minimum required to provide for the people of Gaza is simply not there.

Since the current leader of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, was elected to power in 2017, Hamas has tried a number of strategies attempting to find a solution for the suffering people under their rule. In 2017, Hamas nearly implemented a deal with their Fatah rivals that control the PA in the West Bank, the deal entailed handing over full civilian control of Gaza to the Fatah-run PA, in return for securing an easing of the economic blockade. This initiative eventually fell through however, at a time when Hamas was suffering economically as a governing force.

The following year, in 2018, Hamas temporarily adopted the approach of the Palestinian Authority, supporting non-violent resistance against the Israeli occupation in an attempt to lift the blockade in accordance with calls from the United Nations. The Great March of Return, which began on March 30, 2018, was an overwhelmingly non-violent, mass demonstrator movement that lasted over a year and gained the full support of Hamas. The response from the Israeli military was to commit weekly massacres against these unarmed civilians. Hundreds of Palestinians were shot dead, while tens of thousands were injured, as Israeli snipers directly targeted women, children, the elderly, journalists, medical workers, and people with disabilities. During this time, the U.S. government continued its one-sided support of Israel and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel that same year.

Then in early 2021, PA President Mahmoud Abbas announced that he would be holding the first Palestinian national elections in 15 years. Hamas, along with all other political parties in Palestine, prepared themselves for the elections, which were later canceled by Mahmoud Abbas. And yet, Israeli provocations continued to escalate.

Later in 2021, after Israeli occupation forces repeatedly entered Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, assaulting worshippers throughout the Holy Month of Ramadan, Hamas issued a threat to the Israeli government, calling on them to cancel a march that was organized by extremist settlers in order to defend to Palestinian people. The Israeli authorities chose to assault worshippers inside Al-Aqsa mosque once again, while occupied East Jerusalem erupted into chaos and riots. Finally, on May 10, Hamas opened fire and declared the battle of the “Sword of Jerusalem’. After 11 days of war, Hamas openly announced that they were preparing for a greater war, which would come in response to further attacks at Al-Aqsa Mosque. In many ways, this set the stage for “Operation Al Aqsa Flood” in October 2023.

Non-violent struggle was ignored, Palestinian reconciliation failed, elections were canceled, and Israeli provocations continued to escalate. What this quick recounting makes clear is that Hamas is not ISIS, it is a Palestinian political party, one that non-Western powers like Russia, Türkiye, and China will openly engage with. It is only the Western world that takes such a one-sided and hardline approach against Hamas. This approach has clearly not worked and has only resulted in the eruption of horrifying bloodshed. It is time to put emotion aside and work towards a peaceful settlement. For this to happen, Hamas must be approached seriously as a political entity. 

Eliminating Hamas is not possible, and attempting to do this will only escalate tensions. So, just like the U.S. was able to drop its rhetoric about the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) being a terrorist group, so too must it drop its current stance against Hamas. This doesn’t mean it has to ally itself with them, but it must engage with them politically. The leadership of Hamas has consistently proclaimed to be open to such a dialogue, and that time should be now. It is only arrogance and a complete disregard for the facts on the ground and human suffering that leads Washington to refuse to engage with Hamas seriously.

A time for change

The potential benefits attached to opening up communications and talking to Hamas are numerous. As a start, in order to end the current war, it will take more than a simple ceasefire, and it is paramount that a number of steps be taken towards reconstruction, relief efforts, and governance in post-war Gaza. One possibility is that a deal is struck between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which could solve the issue of who runs the civil administration, and in the event that the PA is to have a role there, this could facilitate ending the siege and larger economic blockade.

Hamas is, in reality, the primary Palestinian political entity, with the Palestinian Authority representing little more than an administrative body in the West Bank and has minimal real relevance in the sphere of politics. However, as irrelevant as the PA may be as a political player, there is still a need for its involvement in the unification of the Palestinian movement. Without accepting the influence and overwhelming popularity of Hamas, attempting to strike a deal on any diplomatic solution, whether this be a short-term fix to the predicament of Gaza or a larger solution to the conflict, would prove disastrous and only lead to further bloodshed in the future.

The U.S. government, despite being irrefutably biased in favor of Israel’s national interests, holds the cards due to its influence over the Israeli government. Therefore, accepting the reality on the ground in order to foster an environment in which sustainable deals can be struck is paramount. At this current moment, there is no path toward any comprehensive solution to the conflict, yet there is a possibility for improving the lives of Palestinians and fostering the environment from which a unified national leadership can emerge.

The primary error the U.S. has made is the assumption it could control a situation where Palestinians are forced to live indefinitely under ever-deteriorating circumstances with no viable political options. The growing armed struggle inside the West Bank, and the enduring armed struggle in the Gaza Strip, show that this situation will only lead to ongoing escalation if not addressed. It is crystal clear that the Palestinian people will not suffer in silence and, like any other people, need a viable path toward a brighter future. Robbing them of their democratic rights and forcing “road maps” and “peace plans” on them, over which they have no say, will not work.

Washington is just as responsible as any other actor for the environment that led to this current war, and the one thing that it has never tried is giving Hamas a chance, just as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter once proposed they do. If there was ever a time to look toward new solutions, it is now. The Israeli government is plausibly accused at the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, of committing genocide in Gaza, this means that it’s time to be brave, it’s time to look past petty politics and search for an immediate solution that saves innocent lives. It is time that the U.S. engage Hamas politically and take them seriously in order to end this horror and pave the way toward progress. The alternative is only further escalation and the possibility of a wider regional war, one which could completely devastate whole nations and even eliminate them entirely.