I’m honestly not. I want to learn, especially in times like these where the information warfare is so tough on both sides. These were just the only more academic sources I could find. I’m not saying “I’m right until you prove otherwise” just trying to crowd source research
When it comes to the official stance of Hamas, I would suggest looking at their 2017 Charter. Notably item 20:
Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
That is interesting and thank you for the primary source reference! I’m trying to interpret the 1967 border phrase with the “complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea”. Is that just referring to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, not either or? Otherwise, the big concerning phrase is the “rejection of the Zionist entity”. It also seems by that last sentence that they want the total dismantling of Israel, but to compromise internally within Palestine, they’re willing to accept merely the 1967 line
I’m honestly not. I want to learn, especially in times like these where the information warfare is so tough on both sides. These were just the only more academic sources I could find. I’m not saying “I’m right until you prove otherwise” just trying to crowd source research
Well that’s fair enough.
When it comes to the official stance of Hamas, I would suggest looking at their 2017 Charter. Notably item 20:
That is interesting and thank you for the primary source reference! I’m trying to interpret the 1967 border phrase with the “complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea”. Is that just referring to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, not either or? Otherwise, the big concerning phrase is the “rejection of the Zionist entity”. It also seems by that last sentence that they want the total dismantling of Israel, but to compromise internally within Palestine, they’re willing to accept merely the 1967 line