Hamas' position on 2-state solution

The NYT reports that "The leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas said on Monday that its fighters would stop firing rockets at Israel for now and reached out in a limited way to the Obama administration and others in the West, saying the movement was seeking a state only in the areas Israel won in 1967." However, the leader, Khaled Meshal, said he would not recognize Israel, although "he urged outsiders to ignore the Hamas charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad and cites as fact the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Mr. Meshal did not offer to revoke the charter but said it was 20 years old, adding “We are shaped by our experiences.”
The Obama administration has said it would only talk to Hamas if it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and accepts previous Palestinian-Israeli accords.

Other important excerpts:
"On the two-state solution sought by the Americans, he said, “We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.” Asked what “long-term” meant, he said 10 years.

Apart from the time restriction and the refusal to accept Israel’s existence, Mr. Meshal’s terms approximate the Arab League peace initiative and what the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas says it is seeking. Israel rejects a full return to the 1967 borders as well as a Palestinian right of return to Israel itself.

Regarding recognition of Israel, Mr. Meshal said that the former Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, and Mr. Abbas had granted such recognition but to no avail. “Did that recognition lead to an end of the occupation? It’s just a pretext by the United States and Israel to escape dealing with the real issue and to throw the ball into the Arab and Palestinian court.”

Asked whether his movement, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist in outlook, wanted to bring strict Muslim law to Gaza and the West Bank, he said no: “The priority is ending the occupation and achieving the national project. As for the nature of the state, it’s to be determined by the people. It will never be imposed upon them.”"

Hamas' acceptance of the two-state solution is nothing new, however. Jennifer Loewenstein had an article in 2006 providing many examples of statements by Hamas leaders saying they accepted the two-state solution. Excerpts with some of those statements:

"When asked by Newsweek-Washington Post correspondent Lally Weymouth on 26 February 2006 what agreements Hamas was prepared to honor, the new Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh answered, "the ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders." Weymouth went on, "Will you recognize Israel?" to which Haniyeh responded, "If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights then we are ready to recognize them." (5) This view encapsulates the Hamas demand for reciprocity." (Hamas' reputation as a "rejectionist" movement stems in part from its unwillingness to act alone, without reciprocal moves by Israel.)

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer four days after the PLC elections, the new Hamas Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Zahar (considered the party's hard-liner) remarked, "We can accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied [in] 1967." Like Haniyeh and other Hamas members, Zahar insists that once such a state is established a long-term truce "lasting as long as 10, 20 or 100 years" will ensue ending the state of armed conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. (6)" See report here.

See also this report.

Of course, Hamas has made less conciliatory statements many times. Nevertheless, the trend over the last few years has been toward a more pragmatic, or realistic, stance. As analyst Mouin Rabbani has written, "On Hamas I would not hesitate to say that the organization as a whole has essentially reconciled itself to a two-state settlement as a strategic option but has not formally adopted this as an organisational position. Yasin, Rantisi, Abu Shanab, Mashal, etc. have all made such statements. Have they made others that contradict them? Of course. But I think it can safely be concluded the strategic decisions have been made, the tactics remain unresolved and the formalities will come last." The question for us is whether or not we will give Hamas the chance to translate their words into actions. Rabbani writes, "it would be as naive to take the above statements on faith as it would be foolish not to put them to the test."(15)