Hamas’s future is not expected to significantly influence Gaza’s trajectory. As the conflict enters its fourth year, there are increasing calls for Hamas to relinquish control of the Gaza Strip. Some argue that for Gaza to have a viable future, Hamas's political and military structures must be dismantled.
However, addressing the historical context that led to the current situation is essential. The issues in Gaza are tied to the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which predates Hamas's formation. The group was not established during the Nakba in 1948, when numerous Palestinian villages were destroyed to create the State of Israel, nor during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in Israel's military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
The occupation has significantly impacted Palestinian society, and the rise of religious influence alongside the decline of secular leadership contributed to the emergence of groups like Hamas. The First Intifada in 1987 marked a key moment leading to Hamas's formation, with founders Ibrahim al-Yazouri, Abdulaziz al-Rantisi, and Ahmed Yassin having personal histories tied to the displacement caused by Israeli actions.
While Hamas's actions are significant, they cannot be viewed in isolation from the historical context and the role of Israel. Unlike groups such as ISIS, which lack local roots, Hamas is deeply connected to Palestinian identity. Despite Hamas's controversial decisions, including the attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the group is seen as a product of ongoing oppression and the struggle for self-determination.
Efforts to resolve the conflict must address these underlying issues rather than solely focusing on Hamas. The framing of Palestinian self-determination as a reward for Hamas is viewed as flawed and prejudiced. International law supports the Palestinian right to self-determination, independent of Hamas's actions.
Public opinion in Gaza reflects skepticism towards Hamas, with a survey indicating that only 29 percent of respondents trust the Hamas-led government. Many blame poverty on internal factors, and a majority support a two-state solution and peaceful resolution over military action.
The presence of Hamas does not justify the destruction in Gaza or the civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military actions, which have led to accusations of war crimes. Hamas was not responsible for specific incidents, such as the deaths of newborns in al-Nasr Hospital or the shooting of a Palestinian girl in January 2024.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has utilized Hamas's existence to argue against negotiating with moderate Palestinian partners, aligning with a political strategy that disregards Palestinian aspirations. This refusal to engage with Palestinian leadership has created a stagnant diplomatic environment.
The imbalance in expectations for negotiations is evident, with Palestinian factions facing stringent conditions for legitimacy while Israeli authorities face no reciprocal demands. Historical instances show that leaders who once engaged in violence transitioned into mainstream politics, highlighting a disparity in how political violence is treated.
Israel's insistence on Hamas's disarmament as a precondition for ceasefire negotiations limits the potential for a negotiated settlement and maintains a status quo that benefits Israel strategically and politically. Ultimately, eliminating Hamas will not resolve the Palestinian quest for freedom, nor will it ensure security for both Israel and Palestine. The conflict's roots extend beyond militant factions and require a comprehensive understanding of the historical and political landscape.