October 4, 2025
Headlines

Israeli historian supports de-proscribing Hamas

admin1888 mins mins

18 June 2025

Avi Shlaim is a distinguished historian of the Middle East, an Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford University and an Israeli by birth who once served in the IDF. No one could be better qualified to evaluate the place of Hamas in the current crisis and the importance of keeping open avenues for diplomacy and understanding. Here is his statement reproduced with permission from Middle East Eye.

Why I support the UK taking a more nuanced position on Hamas

Avi Shlaim

30 May 2025 09:15 BST 

The government once distinguished between the group’s military and political wings, a policy that ended with a total proscription in 2021

The reputation of Hamas sank to its lowest point after its attack on 7 October 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis and foreigners were killed and 251 taken hostage. 

In Israel, this attack provoked a tsunami of anger, strident calls for revenge, demands for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and a national consensus in support of the total eradication of Hamas. The result has been the longest, deadliest and most ruinous war in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Hamas is a social movement and political organisation with a military wing, al-Qassam Brigades. The military wing was proscribed by the British government as a terrorist organisation in March 2001, and in November 2021, former Home Secretary Priti Patel added the political organisation to the list of proscribed groups. 

This decision marked an abrupt reversal of the government’s previous policy, which made a clear distinction between Hamas’s political and military wings. 

Patel, a staunch supporter of Israel, argued, unconvincingly in my opinion, that the distinction between the two wings was no longer tenable. For its part, Israel has always denied that there is any difference between the two wings.

In August 2017, as secretary of state for international development, Patel went on a trip to Israel accompanied by Lord Polak, honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and a major fund-raiser for the Tory party. She had previously served as an officer for CFI’s parliamentary group between 2011 and 2014. 

While pretending to be on a private holiday, Patel held 12 secret meetings with high-ranking Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Upon her return, she asked her officials to explore the possibility of diverting some of the foreign aid budget to enable the Israeli army to carry out humanitarian work in the occupied Golan Heights. She was subsequently forced to resign for concealing the nature and purpose of her trip to Israel.

Baseless argument

In 2019, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson rehabilitated Patel by appointing her as home secretary. Johnson shared her Manichean view of the Middle East struggle, in which Israel represents the forces of light and Palestinians the forces of darkness. 

The change of policy towards Hamas was announced not by the foreign secretary, but by the home secretary. Patel said that designating the whole of Hamas as a terrorist organisation should be seen through a domestic prism: it would help to protect Jews in this country. 

This argument is baseless. Hamas does not carry out operations outside Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, it has no presence in Britain, and it poses no threat to British Jews in this country.

Hamas’s 2017 “Document of General Principles and Policies” (unlike the 1988 Hamas Charter) explicitly distinguishes between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political project. It affirms that Hamas’s conflict with Israel is due to occupation, not religion, and states that it would accept the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognising Israel.

Hamas has now instructed Riverway, a London law firm, to make an application to the home secretary to remove the government’s designation of the movement as a proscribed terror group and recognise its legitimate role as a Palestinian resistance movement engaged in a struggle for self-determination and liberation. 

The application is made by Mousa Abu Marzouk, the former head of Hamas’s political bureau. I am among 19 experts supporting this legal filing through reports on the history and context of Palestinian dispossession. My report describes the central role played by Britain in facilitating this dispossession, from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 up until the present. 

Western media outlets have relied heavily on the Israeli narrative of 7 October, including its countless false allegations and outright fabrications, such as the story of 40 decapitated babies, while under-reporting the Palestinian side of the story. 

One of Abu Marzouk’s most significant correctives to the dominant narrative concerns the background to the Hamas-led 7 October attack. According to him, Hamas sought to achieve specific military objectives during the operation, with clear instructions not to target women, children and the elderly. 

Since deviations from these instructions admittedly occurred, Hamas is prepared to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and any other neutral third party in an independent and transparent investigation into the events of that day. This position stands in sharp contrast to Israel’s denial of journalists’ entry into Gaza, and its refusal to allow any independent investigation of the atrocities and war crimes committed by its forces.

To explain Hamas’s behaviour is not to justify it. Killing civilians is wrong, period. But here, as always, the context is all-important. The attack of 7 October did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred against the backdrop of decades of brutal and suffocating military occupation. Moreover, as a people living under unlawful military occupation, Palestinians have a right to resist, including the right to armed resistance. 

In effect, labelling Hamas’s political leaders as terrorists pure and simple gives Israel a free pass to inflict death and destruction on Gaza without being held to account. The terrorist framing also stands in the way of a more balanced and nuanced understanding of the history, motives, policies and principles of Hamas. 

Crucial context

The Hamas side of the story is hardly ever heard in the West, yet it makes a compelling reason for removing its political wing from the list of proscribed organisations. 

Here are some of the most relevant facts: in January 2006, Hamas won a clear victory in fair and free all-Palestine elections, and proceeded to form a government. Israel refused to recognise this government and resorted to a series of draconian measures to undermine it, supported by the United States and European Union. 

In March 2007, Hamas formed a unity government with its rival party Fatah, but Israel refused to negotiate with them. Instead, Israel and the US encouraged Fatah to stage a coup to drive Hamas out of power. Hamas pre-empted the Fatah coup by seizing power in Gaza, which led to Israel imposing a blockade on the enclave – a form of collective punishment proscribed by international law – which remained in force for 16 years before the Hamas attack on 7 October. 

The home secretary would do well to read the 700 pages of evidence that underpin this application for deproscription before making up her mind

The distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas has always been crucial. Patel’s decision to proscribe Hamas in its entirety was a politically motivated move that disregarded Hamas’s democratic road to power and its growing political moderation once in power. 

Casting the whole of Hamas as a terrorist organisation also served to bolster Israel’s hardline position, its refusal to negotiate, and its reliance on brute military force. Proscription by Britain and other western powers in effect endorsed Israel’s refusal to put Hamas’s willingness to compromise to the test. 

Israel’s recurrent military offensives in Gaza since 2008 are chillingly described by its generals as “mowing the lawn”. Under this grim rubric, the next war is always just around the corner. In the post-7-October military offensive, Israel has gone much, much further than ever before, committing the crime of crimes: genocide. 

As Abu Marzouk points out in his witness statement, Britain is not an innocent bystander in the genocide that is unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was made in Britain. Britain was the colonial power that enabled the Zionist settler-colonial movement to embark on the systematic takeover of Palestine. 

The war in Gaza is the latest and cruellest phase in this long-term colonial effort to displace, dispossess and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people. Hamas is a vital segment of Palestinian society and the vanguard of its resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation. 

Deproscribing the political wing of Hamas would constitute a small step towards rectifying a monumental historical wrong. The home secretary would do well to read the 700 pages of evidence that underpin this application for deproscription before making up her mind.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. The purpose of this article is to set out the author’s reasons for supporting Abu Marzouk’s application. Nothing in this article should be understood as inviting or otherwise encouraging readers to support, or express support for, Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas).

Avi Shlaim is an Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford University and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (2014) and Genocide in Gaza: Israel’s Long War on Palestine (2025)

188 thoughts on “Israeli historian supports de-proscribing Hamas”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related News