Again my Pulsipher World Regional Geography astonishes me.
Pulsipher, World Regional Geography 4th ed., without subregions, ISBN 978-0-7167-8522-4, p. 256.
I didn’t realize that Hamas had ever recognized Israel’s right to exist. Last I checked (before 2006), Hamas’s charter called for Israel’s destruction. And I could have sworn that I read in the Economist just two or three weeks ago a reference to Hamas still having that provision in its charter.
I vaguely recall reading back around the time that Hamas won the election that their leaders were offering some kind of truce or indefinite suspension of war against Israel, but not that they had actually renounced the formal goal of destroying the “Zionist entity.”
Potentially this is a GD, but for starters I think it’s just a straight-up factual question: did Hamas recognize the right of Israel to exist?
Not that I’ve heard of, and I keep track of these things.
Based on the wording of your quote (a political party and activist organization that had previously been associated with acts of violence against Israel) I wouldn’t put much faith in that particular source.
Perhaps your book was right when it was written. I, too, vaguely remember Hamas saying they recognized Israel’s right of existence when they were elected. They might have been more interested in collecting international money than driving the infidels into the sea, but then changed back when they were removed from power.
Hamas is also hardly a monolithic entity. When they first were elected, several leading players made statements that sorta kinda, when viewed in the most favorable way, implied they agreed that Israel would continue to exist, ie that Hamas would do nothing to hasten Israel’s demise, while not saying that they were happy with this status quo. Most of those outspoken leaders are no longer in leading positions.
The formal Hamas charter has never been amended on this point. At least not to my knowledge based on extensive non-professional reading on the topic.