It’s called a terrorist organization according to the US and its allies. Now they’re not good, more like morally grey, but they’re not any worse than the IDF. Also given that Hamas has agreed to a two-state solution before, I’m not sure what beliefs you’re objecting to Palestinians having.
It’s a decision made for practical reasons, much like the PLO switching from armed to peaceful resistance and the Palestinian resistance movement as a whole switching from taking back all of Palestine to returning to 1967 borders. Hamas ideologically rejects Israel (for good reason) so they’re not willing to recognize it, but denying the position they’re in won’t accomplish anything, hence their current position. You can think of them as a more self-aware IRA.
See also: The PLO taking back their recognition of Israel during the second Intifada despite not changing their goal of a two-state solution.
Better than the “we will take everything and kill you” solution Israel is offering.
Either way when it comes to organizations like Hamas their official positions (even though in this case it should be at least acceptable as a start) don’t really matter. There’s a reason I compared them with the IRA; when the injustice fueling these sorts of organizations fades away they either adapt by becoming governments or political parties (as Hamas attempted to do in the 2006 election) or fade away ala the IRA.
It’s called a terrorist organization according to the US and its allies. Now they’re not good, more like morally grey, but they’re not any worse than the IDF. Also given that Hamas has agreed to a two-state solution before, I’m not sure what beliefs you’re objecting to Palestinians having.
I think you may be conflating Hamas and the PLO. Hamas maintains that Israel should not exist.
Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel, but has stated they’d accept a two-state solution with 1967 borders multiple times.
Do you think those two things are logically consistent?
It’s a decision made for practical reasons, much like the PLO switching from armed to peaceful resistance and the Palestinian resistance movement as a whole switching from taking back all of Palestine to returning to 1967 borders. Hamas ideologically rejects Israel (for good reason) so they’re not willing to recognize it, but denying the position they’re in won’t accomplish anything, hence their current position. You can think of them as a more self-aware IRA.
See also: The PLO taking back their recognition of Israel during the second Intifada despite not changing their goal of a two-state solution.
That sounds less like a two state solution than a “we are biding our time until we can take the rest” situation.
Better than the “we will take everything and kill you” solution Israel is offering.
Either way when it comes to organizations like Hamas their official positions (even though in this case it should be at least acceptable as a start) don’t really matter. There’s a reason I compared them with the IRA; when the injustice fueling these sorts of organizations fades away they either adapt by becoming governments or political parties (as Hamas attempted to do in the 2006 election) or fade away ala the IRA.
I can get on board with that. I hope you’re right.