Opinion | In the End, Hamas Remains

A Hamas terrorist stands guard as a Red Cross vehicles arrives at the site of the handing over the bodies of four Israeli hostages in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza in February.Credit: AFP/EYAD BABA

Like it or not—mainly not—Hamas is the only game in town. This is not a particularly hopeful fact, but we have to recognize the limits of force, something that is difficult for Israel and the United States to do. Instead of fighting another war "to remove Hamas from power," blah blah blah, we need to accustom ourselves to its existence. From this, it follows that we must talk to the organization—even, or in fact, especially after October 7.

In the end, only Hamas endures.

After 17 months of bloodshed, Hamas endures.

Following the deaths of hundreds of Israeli soldiers and tens of thousands of Gazans, Hamas endures.

After destruction on the scale of Dresden, Hamas endures.

Despite countless Israeli promises, Hamas endures.

In fact, only Hamas remains in Gaza.

We must recognize this and draw the conclusions.

What was not achieved in 17 months will not be achieved in another 17. What was not achieved with the use of the most barbaric force in Israel's history will not be achieved with even more inhumane and brutal force.

Hamas is here to stay.

It has been critically injured militarily, and it will recover. Politically and ideologically, it grew stronger during the war after it resurrected the Palestinian issue, which Israel and the world were supposed to forget.

Hamas remains, and Israel cannot change this.

Israel doesn't have the power to appoint a different governing entity in Gaza, not only because it's doubtful one exists but also because there is a limit to its tyranny. It cannot replace another nation's regime, as the United States once could.

This is why the talk about the "day after" is misleading:

There is no day after Hamas, and presumably, there won't be one anytime soon; Hamas is the only governing body in Gaza, at least in the current, nearly inalterable circumstances. Therefore, the "day after" will include Hamas.

We must get used to it.

The first conclusion that follows from this is, of course, the futility of resuming the war. It will kill the remaining hostages and tens of thousands of residents of Gaza, and in the end Hamas will remain. But this grim reality also offers an opportunity for change in the Strip, if Israel and the United States absorb the fact of Hamas' survival. It is a harsh, cruel organization, for which there is no replacement.

It would be better if Gaza had a different government – for example, that of the Sweden Social Democrats – but that isn't in the immediate offing. From the ridiculous "clan rule" to the fantastical import to Gaza of the Palestinian Authority on the treads of Israeli tanks and the nonsensical "technocracy" – all are pipe dreams.

The king of Gaza will be from Hamas, or anointed with its consent. It's impossible to appoint a leader for Gaza, not even the charismatic Mohammed Dahlan, if Hamas objects. Nor will the Palestinian Authority, which is dying a slow death in the West Bank, suddenly come to life in Gaza.

Anyone who wanted a different government should have thought of this at the time of Israel's 2005 disengagement from the Strip, in, a move which should have happened as part of an agreement with the Palestinian Authority. But when choosing between good and evil, Israel will always opt for the latter.

Like it or not – mainly not – Hamas is the only game in town. This is not a particularly hopeful fact, but we have to recognize the limits of force, something that is difficult for Israel and the United States to do. Instead of fighting another war "to remove Hamas from power," blah blah blah, we need to accustom ourselves to its existence. From this it follows that we must talk to the organization. Even, or in fact especially, after October 7.

We've already exacted our revenge on Hamas in spades, with compound interest. Its commanders, murderers, rapists, abductors and their helpers have been dealt their retribution. Israel has been negotiating with Hamas for 17 months, even if not directly.

The United States has already talked to it directly, and the heavens didn't fall. Talks have led to agreements, which Hamas has kept, showing not only its power but also that it can be trusted. Had Israel kept its promises as Hamas did, we would already be in the second and third stages of the cease-fire agreement.

If Israel had a statesman with vision and courage, presumably a hopeless proposition, he would try to talk to Hamas. Directly, openly, in public view, in Gaza or in Jerusalem. We forgave Germany and we'll forgive Hamas, if it too were to have a courageous leader. In the meantime, we must challenge it by trying. There is less to lose from this than from another insane round of bombing and shelling.