An official from Hamas said that should a two-state solution be implemented, the organisation will disarm.


dok. Reuters

,-Senior Hamas political figure stated in a recent interview with The Associated Press that the organisation is open to thinking about a five-year or longer truce with Israel. Representing the Islamic militant group, Khalil al-Hayya said that, under specific circumstances, Hamas would be willing to give up its weapons and become a political party. More precisely, Hamas wants to see an independent Palestinian state created along the lines that existed before 1967.

These remarks coincide with months-long deadlock in cease-fire talks. The idea put forward by Al-Hayya that Hamas disarm is a major concession from a party that has always been dedicated to the devastation of Israel. But it's still unclear if Israel would consider such a suggestion, particularly in view of current hostilities and its unwavering rejection of the establishment of a Palestinian state on land taken in the 1967 Middle East war.

Prominent Hamas leader Al-Hayya has participated in talks on hostage exchanges and cease-fires. In his comments to the AP in Istanbul, he mixed defiance with reconciliation. He described how Hamas wants to become a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), which is headed by the opposing Fatah group, in order to create a single government for Gaza and the West Bank. Along Israel's pre-1967 lines and in compliance with international agreements, he also underlined Hamas's preparedness to accept a fully autonomous Palestinian state comprising the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the return of Palestinian refugees.

If these requirements are fulfilled, Al-Hayya said, Hamas's armed arm will disband, following the pattern of other liberation parties that became political entities after gaining independence. But according to its political programme, Hamas's stated position—which is based on regaining all lands from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including modern-day Israel—still opposes any other course of action short of the liberation of Palestine.

Interestingly, Al-Hayya did not make clear if Hamas's seeming acceptance of a two-state solution marks the end of the battle with Israel or if it is only a stopgap measure on its long-term objective of destroying Israel. The Palestinian Authority, the internationally recognised governing entity that Hamas drove from Gaza in 2007, and Israel have not yet responded. Notwithstanding the political unrest, the Palestinian Authority aims to create an independent state on the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza—areas that Israel annexed in the 1967 war. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government in Israel right now is adamantly against such a resolution.

The cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas have failed during the almost seven-month-long conflict. Originating from the horrific attacks on southern Israel on October 7, the acts of terrorists under Hamas-led leadership resulted in a high number of casualties and hostage situations. Following Israeli military actions in Gaza, thousands of Palestinians lost their lives and a large number of people were forced to flee their homes.

Even although Israel has declared its intention to destroy Hamas and its military might, Al-Hayya is unwavering in his disobedience. He says that any Israeli assault in Rafah would not be able to destroy Hamas. Al-Hayya said that Hamas's political and military leadership continue to communicate, demonstrating the organization's tenacity in the face of hardship.

Al-Hayya said Hamas was open to compromise and talks despite the difficulties. Remarkably, recent events—like the Hamas representatives' move from Qatar to Turkey—indicate a possible change in the mediation process. The international world is closely observing events and both sides are firmly rooted in their respective stances, so the route to a long-lasting peace agreement is still unclear.

In the end, the interview by Al-Hayya highlights the intricacy and turbulence of the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the pressing need for diplomatic solutions and attempts at peace. The hopes for peace and security in the area are still very important in the face of the continuous violence and humanitarian emergencies; they need for ongoing communication and involvement to open the door for a better future for all parties concerned.


Previous Post Next Post