What next for Palestine? Gaza is a wasteland, a dystopian scene of devastation and starvation. The occupied West Bank is under siege from rampant Israeli settler gunmen.

In Gaza, the nefarious Israeli Air Force bombs civilians every day with impunity. While the Israeli state plays the victim to a gullible Western media, the IDF perpetrates genocide before our eyes. The Hamas al-Qassam Brigades, responsible for the deplorable attacks on 7 October 2023, remain operative, albeit with senior ranks decimated and its defiant militants scattered and hunted. In a recent development, some 600 former Israeli security officials, including previous heads of the Mossad and the IDF, have urged US President Donald Trump to pressure Israel to end the war in Gaza. Significantly, they agree Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel. 

On the home front, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has insisted Hamas cannot be involved in a future Palestinian state. It’s become a reflexive refrain from Britain, Canada and now our political leadership. No attempt is made to distinguish the Hamas political wing from the al-Qassam Brigades. After repeating the terrorist mantra about Hamas for so long, it is apparently deemed necessary to call for their total exclusion from the process of building a Palestinian state. Perhaps not. 

Along with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Gaza’s second largest armed faction, Hamas is variously prescribed as a “terrorist” organisation by just eight nations plus the EU: Australia, Canada, Paraguay, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the UK and the US. By contrast, Hamas is not regarded as a terrorist organisation by the overwhelming majority of UN recognised states including India, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Mexico, Brazil, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, Russia, China, and Brazil. Some states consider the armed struggle waged by the Hamas militants to be legitimate.

Shifting his rhetoric and repositioning the government on Palestinian statehood, Albanese has finally asked an important question: “How do we create the conditions for a Palestinian state to be viable?” It’s a fundamental inquiry and one that deserves an informed answer, difficult though that is in the midst of Israel’s genocidal war. Some background about use of the terrorist designation is instructive.

Consider this. Last month, the US revoked its designation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as a foreign terrorist organisation as Washington moved to reverse its policy on post-war Syria following the ousting of Bashar al-Assad’s Government. “This FTO revocation is an important step in fulfilling President Trump’s vision of a stable, unified and peaceful Syria,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. HTS has been designated as a terrorist group since 2018 due to its former ties to al-Qaeda. After HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa declared the group’s independence, he led the opposition forces that removed Assad in a lightening offensive last December. Al-Sharaa has since become Syria’s president.

Almost overnight, Al-Sharaa went from “terrorist leopard” and former al-Queda operative in Iraq, to Trump’s lavish description of him now as “a young attractive tough guy”. Trump says he is hoping to give Syria “a fresh start” by lifting sanctions and delisting HTS as a terrorist organisation. The realpolitik here is unmistakable. If it suits America’s interests to turn a “terrorist” organisation, or state, into an ally or neutral “friend” it will happen quickly and without impediment. In the final analysis, it’s all about political advantage. The “national security” rationale for the designation is quietly dropped. Consider three further examples.

The case of the Irish Republican Army is well known. It was designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK and other Western governments before and during the time of the Good Friday negotiations and the subsequent peace process. While the IRA was a party to the negotiations, and its political wing, Sinn Fein, was eventually included, the group itself was not de-proscribed as a terrorist organisation during the negotiations. The Good Friday Agreement was signed by major political parties in Northern Ireland in April 1998 after a period of extensive negotiations. Notably, the IRA called a ceasefire to facilitate the peace process.

In the 1980s, the African National Congress and its leader, Nelson Mandela, were designated a terrorist organisation by the US and the UK during the apartheid era. The ANC’s armed wing, uMkhonto we Sizwe, engaged in armed rebellion against the apartheid state, and while this led to condemnation from some Western governments, the ANC’s legitimacy as a liberation movement was eventually widely accepted. It led to Mandela becoming South African president and a statesman. The ANC was a key player in the negotiations to end apartheid, and its leaders were a central part of the process.

More recently, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party has been listed as a terrorist organisation by several countries, including Türkiye, the US, the EU, Australia and Japan. The PKK was formed in response to the suppression of Kurds in Türkiye, and waged an armed campaign aiming to secure linguistic, cultural and political rights for the Kurdish minority. In May 2025, the PKK announced its intention to disarm and end its insurgency, holding a symbolic disarmament ceremony in July 2025. Türkiye President Erdogan said the decision was an important step: “With terror and violence being completely disengaged, the doors of a new era in every area, namely strengthening politics and democratic capacity, will be opened,” he said. It is instructive to note that the US designation of the PKK as a FTO has not hindered America’s de-facto alliance with the armed group. US strategic interests in Iraq and Syria came first.

More directly applicable to the current situation with Hamas, the US requested in 2011 that Qatar provide a base for the Hamas leadership to enable communications with the group. From 2012, Qatar hosted the Hamas party leadership when they relocated from Syria to Qatar. Most of the Hamas political leaders have now been assassinated by the Israelis, complicating efforts by the US and other intermediaries to negotiate the release of the Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. It should be remembered, too, that from 2018 to 2023, the Israeli Government approved Qatari support for Hamas in a relentless effort to subvert unity with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

Securing political recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people

The designation of “terrorist” to label politically-motivated violent conduct is historically an adaptable and ever-shifting concept. The US habitually uses the branding as a political and geopolitical tool to isolate its enemies. As the saying goes, “terrorism to some, is heroism to others”. Manifestly, the nations of the world are decisively split on the legitimacy of armed struggle, making consensus on what constitutes terrorism impossible. There is no objective assessment known in international law. 

To answer Albanese’s rhetorical question about how we create the conditions for a viable Palestinian state, Australia needs first to abandon its demand to exclude Hamas from a political settlement. Albanese and Wong have declared that “Hamas has no role to play” in a future Palestinian state. Hamas should be isolated and shunned, they say. Concurrently, Wong claims that unless the international community work together towards two states “there is a risk that there will be no Palestine left to recognise”. Indeed. 

Liberal Party spokesperson James Patterson claims the Tories can’t support recognition of Palestine “until and unless there is an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to guarantee the security of Israel and a peace settlement between the two parties”. No mention is made of security for Palestine or recognition that Israel has said it will never voluntarily agree to a two-state outcome. To be sure, this renders their conditions for a peace settlement dead on arrival. As a consequence, the Australian polity remains trapped on the sidelines as the world struggles for a historic shift to peace in the Middle East. 

While Australian politicians posture and procrastinate, the Israeli Knesset recently hosted a conference in which far-right politicians and members of the Netanyahu Government discussed a “proposed plan” to cleanse Gaza of Palestinians and annex it for Israel. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, sanctioned by Australia for his incitement of settler violence on the West Bank, told the conference: “We will occupy Gaza and make it an inseparable part of Israel.”

At the same time, on 29 July, delegates at a United Nations conference launched the “New York Declaration”, which announced “unwavering support” for a two-state solution and called on Israel to commit to a Palestinian state. As part of the proceedings, the 22-member League of Arab States called for an end to the war in Gaza. Hamas, they said, “must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objectives of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state”. The declaration was co-signed by all 27 EU states and 17 other countries. The conference also called for the deployment of “a temporary international stabilisation mission”, invited by the Palestinian Authority, which administers part of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and “under the aegis of the United Nations”. 

While many of the key players understandably want the militants to disarm or demobilise, they do not exclude Hamas from political engagement in the peace settlement which must follow a permanent ceasefire. It is a critical distinction and one which mirrors peace agreements in Ireland, South Africa and Türkiye. Australia would do well to listen, and not attempt to impose simple-minded conditions on the sovereign processes of the Palestinian people.

The world should aim for a deal that draws support from a wide variety of stakeholders in the Middle East, throughout the Muslim world, in Europe and, of course, the US. The essential elements of a ceasefire deal that could lay the foundation for a more comprehensive regional peace already exist in two documents: the so-called 2024 “Beijing Declaration”, which the 14 major Palestinian political factions, including Fatah and Hamas, signed last year, and the Arab League’s Plan for the Early Recovery, Reconstruction, and Development of Gaza, backed by the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Co-operation and by France, Germany, Italy, and the UK. According to the participants, Hamas negotiators have offered to stand down all military activity as long as the US guarantees that Israel will not resume its attacks after Israeli hostages are freed.

To take advantage of this opportunity, the US has a role to play to hold Israel to a commitment not to restart hostilities anywhere in the occupied Palestinian territories. Australia could play a role with France, Canada and the UK to help persuade Israel to allow international peacekeeping forces into Gaza, and eventually the West Bank, as a broader political accord is negotiated. Their presence could allow signatories to implement the Beijing Declaration, in which Hamas agreed to hand over governance and security control in Gaza to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Fatah agreed to hold elections and begin a process to integrate Hamas into the Palestine Liberation Organisation. History shows that enduring peace is made possible when all stakeholders are invited in. 

Only when Gaza and the West Bank come under one authority can the enormous task of healing and rebuilding in Gaza begin. And only a unified and legitimate Palestinian state can make peace with Israel and guarantee its security. Unless the belligerents are part of the political process, no progress will be made. This moment is an opportunity to change the current wretched situation in Gaza that must not be missed.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.