The Netanyahu Shortcut: From Complexity to Conquest

The Paradox of a Palestinian State Without Hamas.

Calls for a Palestinian state that excludes Hamas often rest on a well-intentioned but deeply flawed premise. The notion that one can surgically remove Hamas—both as a political entity and as an ideological force—from Palestinian society and then proceed to build a cooperative, peaceful state alongside Israel is not just optimistic: it’s contradictory.

Hamas is not merely a faction entrenched in Gaza. It is a hegemonic force whose influence stretches across the West Bank and resonates throughout the broader Arab world. Its ideology—rooted in resistance and rejection of Israel’s legitimacy—is woven into the political and cultural fabric of many Palestinian communities. To imagine a Palestinian state devoid of Hamas is to ignore the reality that this group, for better or worse, represents a significant portion of Palestinian identity and aspiration.

Even the symbolic secularism once championed by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority has long been eclipsed. Since the crushing defeat of Nasser’s pan-Arabism in 1967, the ideological vacuum left behind was rapidly filled by Islamism. The rise of Gulf petrodollar-funded Wahhabi sheikhdoms reshaped the region’s religious and political discourse, exporting a more rigid and doctrinal form of Islam that seeped into Palestinian political life. What was once a nationalist struggle with secular overtones has increasingly become a religious one, further complicating the prospects for coexistence.

The contrast between the outdated nationalist vision of the PLO and the caliphatic aspirations of Hamas reveals a deeper truth: the Palestinian cause has never had a stable, physical statehood to anchor its nationalism. Palestinian nationalism, as a concept, emerged relatively late—largely in response to Zionism and colonial pressures—rather than from an organic, long-standing national identity. In contrast, Hamas draws legitimacy from a historical and religious narrative that frames Palestine as sacred Islamic land, conquered by the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab. According to this view, once a land becomes part of the abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam), it must remain so until the Day of Judgment. Under this doctrine, Muslims living there should never be ruled by non-Muslims—especially Jews. This theological underpinning makes Hamas’s ideology not just political, but eschatological, and far more resistant to compromise.

To meaningfully challenge Hamas’s ideology, one must examine the sources that nourish and sustain it. The ideological lifeblood of contemporary Islamism flows from the Gulf. Countries like Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia continue to invest vast wealth into preserving and disseminating a medieval cultural current that circulates throughout the Middle East. Whether through media platforms, religious institutions, or strategic alliances with Islamist movements, these states have played a pivotal role in reinforcing the ideological infrastructure that Hamas draws upon. While their motivations vary—from soft power ambitions to domestic control—the result is a region where political Islam remains robust, well-funded, and deeply entrenched.

The foundational ethos of Hamas is antithetical to peaceful cooperation. A state built on the ruins of that ideology cannot simply pivot toward reconciliation with Israel without undergoing a seismic transformation—one that requires not just political reform but a reimagining of national consciousness. That transformation cannot be imposed externally, nor can it be rushed.

The international community must confront this paradox honestly. A viable Palestinian state must be more than a symbolic rebuke to Hamas—it must be a genuine alternative that earns legitimacy from within. That means fostering leadership that can command respect, not just from foreign diplomats, but from Palestinians themselves. It means building institutions that reflect a commitment to peace, not just a rejection of violence.

Until such a shift occurs, the dream of a Palestinian state that coexists with Israel remains aspirational. And any effort to force its creation without reconciling the ideological dominance of Hamas risks deepening the very divisions it seeks to heal.

This paradox is further compounded by Israel’s current stance. At a celebratory signing ceremony in Ma’ale Adumim, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unequivocally declared, “There will be no Palestinian state, this place belongs to us”. His statement, delivered amid plans to expand settlements in the sensitive E1 area, signals that Israel is not interested in embarking on the complex, resource-intensive process of building a viable Palestinian counterpart. Instead, the path chosen appears to be one of unilateral resolution—cementing facts on the ground that foreclose the possibility of a two-state solution. In this context, the ideological battle with Hamas becomes moot; the very framework for coexistence is being dismantled before it can be debated.