Hamas's demand to stop the war

According to what was reported from a Hamas leader in Lebanon, who was speaking, a few days ago, at a press conference in Beirut, “the movement’s demand to stop the war is an end to the occupation, the return of refugees, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.” Thank you, Mr. Osama Hamdan. There are two reasons for gratitude: The first is old, and the second is new. The first is to remind you of what was known, before the emergence of “Hamas,” Khawatim, in 1987, on the eve of the launch of the first intifada against the Israeli occupation from the Gaza Strip, in a spontaneous manner that surprised even the leaders of the Palestinian factions at that time, and then it spread throughout the entire occupied territory. What is known here is the demand of the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, within the borders of June 4, 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital, after the withdrawal of all Israeli occupation forces, on the basis that its establishment will in turn lead to a comprehensive peace that will establish An end to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole.

The second reason is that a Hamas leader set the required condition to stop the movement’s latest war against Israel, after it began with a surprise attack that was unprecedented in size, planning, implementation, and impact, on the seventh of this month. Defining the condition is important in itself. If it proves to be truly strategic, it will tell people that Hamas has a target for its attack. The goal here is what specialists refer to as “ENDGAME,” meaning that every party that participates, or is involved in any political game, must not mess around, but rather enter the field aware of the consequences of what it is approaching. In light of the above, it is possible to reconcile Osama Hamdan’s words with the statement of Mr. Khaled Meshal, “the head of the movement abroad,” during an interview conducted with him by Al-Arabiya channel, that the attack was a “thought-out adventure,” stressing the following: “We know very well the consequences of our operation on the day of October 7.

The words of the two, Mishal and Hamdan, are very important, as they may help to understand the purpose of what is happening, and therefore it is necessary that they be documented historically, as no one knows, until now, with certainty, the results of the endings of the series whose chapters began rolling nineteen days ago. As a result of the confusion, you see and hear how people multiply fifths by sixths, and engage in speculative adventures, some of which are expected to have an ending no less disastrous than the First Nakba of Palestine (1948), and some of which indicate the possibility that it will result in a new map of the region between Rafah, the Gaza Valley, and Al-Aqsa. In the northern Gaza Strip, it imposes a reality that surprises everyone.

It is also important to note Hamas’s words about the demand for an “independent Palestinian state.” What is assumed is that the movement’s charter contradicts this perception fundamentally, based on its rejection of the “two-state solution,” which was accepted by the Palestine Liberation Organization and approved by the international community, while Israel rejects it. Hamas’s objection is based on the fact that the land of Palestine is an indivisible whole, and according to those who adhere most closely to the same approach, it is an “Islamic endowment,” and the Palestinians themselves do not have the right to dispose of it alone. Within this context, it can be concluded that the demand for an “independent Palestinian state” was not invented by Hamas. Rather, it rejected it in the past, even before its inception, when everyone preceded it. Was it necessary for what has happened so far to become this? What is the requirement to stop the war? Maybe the answer is yes. Regardless of agreement or disagreement with the Hamas leadership, it is clear that it has succeeded in reminding the world of the necessity of finding a solution to the Palestine issue, even if the return is to push it into a kind of liquidation, especially if the solution comes in the form of creating a “statelet” for what remains. From the rubble of the Gaza Strip, after the guns fell silent. How terrifying are the questions that seek convincing answers?

Source: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat