Hamas is Changing by: Hani Al-Masri

In 2005, I wrote a paper titled "Hamas is Changing." It stated that Hamas, by agreeing to the Cairo Declaration in March 2005, which included a series of points indicating its decision to join the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and participate in the national authority, had begun a significant shift in its political approach. This was confirmed by its decision to participate in the local elections held that same year, and then in the legislative elections that took place the following year. What made me say at that time that Hamas is changing is that it had previously rejected joining the PLO, despite the generous offer made to it by the late President Yasser Arafat, and instead sought to form an alternative or parallel organization to the PLO. Hamas had also boycotted the first legislative elections, considering them a product of the Oslo Agreement, which it opposed and called for its overthrow. Therefore, Hamas's decision to enter the PLO and the national authority, without conditioning a change in its political approach or the overthrow of Oslo, represented a significant shift in its position. However, if we delve into the reasons for this shift and its roots, we find a set of factors that contributed to pushing it towards this. First: Hamas realized that forming an alternative or parallel organization to the PLO was an extremely difficult, if not impossible, goal due to the clash with a firm Arab and international decision that considers the PLO the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people. Therefore, it chose to work on changing the PLO from within, instead of seeking to create an alternative framework. Second: Hamas imagined that Fatah, after the assassination of Yasser Arafat, the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000, and the failure of the political path that the organization's leadership relied upon, had become much weaker, allowing it to become a full partner in the Palestinian political system, and perhaps gradually replace Fatah in leading the national project. This was also encouraged by the change in the American approach after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the George W. Bush administration adopted an approach that, in one of its aspects, asserted that stability in the region required changing the regimes that provide an environment for extremism, and encouraging what was then called "moderate Islam" in the face of "extremist Islam." In the context of these transformations, Hamas dealt with Oslo as if it were dead. The truth is that Oslo died for Israel, but it remained, and still is, alive for Palestinians. The compelling evidence of this is the persistence of the self-governing authority and its adherence to the political, economic, and security commitments arising from the Oslo Agreement. Since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli governments have gradually, and then completely, abandoned most of the Israeli commitments outlined in Oslo. Nevertheless, Israeli governments, including the current one, which is considered the most extremist in Israel's history, despite their repeated eulogies for Oslo, have not decided to officially bury and cancel it; so as not to bear full responsibility for the crime, and to maintain the Palestinian commitments stipulated in it. It is strikingly ironic that the Islamic Women's Association invited me to present my paper discussing Hamas's change, which I delivered at a large conference attended by many leaders, cadres, and supporters of Hamas, held in the martyr Zafar Al-Masri auditorium at An-Najah National University. This angered some of the youth of the Islamic Bloc, who began chanting that "Hamas is steadfast and does not change." Sheikh Hassan Youssef was sitting next to me, and he turned to me and said that Hamas does not change. I replied that change is the law of life, and that only inanimate objects do not change; those who do not change are surpassed by events. Any political movement is primarily concerned with achieving its goals and implementing its program. However, it is also concerned, perhaps even more so, with political survival. Changes, challenges, dangers, and sometimes opportunities may compel political movements to change as change is the only way to survive and achieve goals. This is exactly what is happening with Hamas at this stage. It agreed to the Trump plan, albeit gradually, because agreeing to it represented, in its estimation, the only way to stop the genocide being inflicted on the Gaza Strip, which gained, after the issuance of UN Security Council Resolution (2803), international cover and became the American plan the adopted political framework for stopping the war. Then Hamas agreed to the fifteen points, which Israel later reneged on, and despite that, it received American cover, even though it was an American plan par excellence. Hamas expressed its willingness to disarm in the form of storing it and handing it over to the administrative committee, relinquishing power in the Gaza Strip, and transforming into a political party, in exchange for stopping the genocide, the simultaneous withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the implementation of the rest of the plan's provisions, foremost among them reconstruction. One cannot outbid Hamas, or the other components of the Palestinian national movement, or the Palestinian leadership and national authority, regarding the reasons for its acceptance of the Trump plan, and the administrative committee affiliated with the peace council, which practically constitutes a colonial trusteeship council that surpasses and will replace the Palestinian political system in all its components. The increase in the number of Palestinian martyrs to more than 1,500 since the ceasefire in October last year, and the various types of violations committed by the occupation forces, including expanding the areas they occupy within the Gaza Strip to about 70%, without any Palestinian response capable of stopping these violations, provides a highly indicative answer about the extent of the weakness and predicament we have reached. However, this does not mean that we should refrain from asking the difficult questions. On the contrary, what is required today is a deep dialogue, a bold review, accountability, and frank criticism regarding why we have reached this situation, how we have reached this very low level of power balances and ability to influence, and how we can get out of this predicament and build a better Palestinian situation. Yes, Hamas is changing. It has changed in the past, and it is changing now as well. But this does not mean, nor should it mean, that it changes its skin or abandons its identity, program, and role. However, sufficient change has become a necessity, as failure to change may put its political and organizational survival itself at risk. The greatest change required from Hamas, and from other resistance factions, is to stop armed resistance at this stage, because it is an Israeli condition that enjoys regional and international approval, and because its continuation under the current power balances may provide a pretext for the continuation of the genocide and prolonging the suffering of the Palestinian people, and the lack of Israeli withdrawal and the initiation of reconstruction, which should be the top priority to prevent migration and displacement. Armed resistance can be stopped, but without abandoning the national project that needs to be redefined and nationally agreed upon, nor the right to resistance in all its forms, and without committing to not resorting to it in the future if circumstances change and require it. Most importantly, resistance should not be retroactively condemned, as happened in Oslo and its annexes, so that a temporary political decision imposed by specific circumstances turns into a permanent concession of rights and constants. Political movements do not live in a vacuum, nor do they operate under fixed conditions. They are required to adapt to changes in order to protect their people and achieve their goals. But adaptation should not turn into surrender, and change should not mean abandoning rights, and the concern for political survival should not be a poisonous fruit of betting on the American administration, which cannot be relied upon, and nothing should take precedence over the survival of the people, the cause, and the rights. What is required is for Hamas to change, for Fatah to change, for the rest of the Palestinian forces to change, for the entire Palestinian political system to change, and for us to witness movements, activities, parties, and a new renaissance, allowing for a transition from managing division and crisis to formulating a comprehensive vision that gives rise to appropriate strategies and building a single national leadership capable of protecting the Palestinian people and their rights and interests, and regaining the initiative instead of merely adapting to what others impose. Change is not the opposite of steadfastness. Steadfastness on goals and rights does not mean stagnation in means and policies. And this is the issue that should be the subject of real discussion today. Hani Al-Masri August 28, 2026