Hamas is a terrorist organisation that can have no future politically or militarily in Gaza or the West Bank, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, has said.
Borrell was speaking in Barcelona alongside the Jordanian foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, who repeated his belief that it was for the Palestinians alone to determine their future rulers.
The two men were attending a Union for the Mediterranean regional forum along with 48 other countries in the Middle East, Europe and north Africa. Israel declined an invitation to attend.
Borrell said there was strong support at the summit for the current humanitarian pause in the war between Israel and Hamas to be extended “to make it sustainable and long-lasting while working for a political solution”.
But there was pessimism about the prospect of the ceasefire being extended beyond the end of this week.
The difference over Hamas, reflected widely across the diplomatic community, is between those that think Hamas is entrenched in Gaza and those who think it is necessary to ban Hamas after the war ends, saying its violent attack on Israel on 7 October – when at least 1,200 people in Israel were killed – precludes it from any future political activity.
Borrell said he believed there were some things “everyone can agree” on, including “no to the return of Hamas to Gaza, as a political and military force. This organisation has harmed everyone, including the Palestinian people.”
He said: “The solution comes from the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza. A Palestinian Authority revitalised, because a territory without a state, is a territory which would be delivered to chaos, to violence, to terrorism and migration for which Europe will be the first to pay the price.”
He added: “Hamas is a terrorist group, and we are clear about that.” He implicitly acknowledged the frequently stated alternative position of Jordan by adding: “For other countries it [Hamas] represents an idea and you cannot kill an idea and the only way to do that is to offer a better idea.”
Borrell also called for elections as soon as possible for a revamped Palestinian Authority representing Gaza and the West Bank.
He believes that the PA is more entrenched inside Gaza than recognised, saying that, despite being ejected from Gaza as a political and security force in 2007, the PA was still delivering many public services including health and schools in Gaza. The Palestinian foreign minister, Riyad al-Maliki, said the Palestinian Authority had no need to return to Gaza, adding: “We have been there all the time, we have 60,000 public workers there.”
Borrell said unless the international community planned to forget Gaza and let it be turned into a kind of Mogadishu without any law and order, then the Palestinians had to govern themselves. He said: “Elections needed to be held as soon as possible and Israel has to allow them,” rather than blocking them as they did in 2021 in East Jerusalem, leading the PA to abandon the planned legislative elections.
He said: “We cannot wait for years for the perfect solution; we have to work with what we have.”
Safadi simply said on the future of Palestinian governance: “The Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, and let them decide who should rule them.” He said any talk of administration of Gaza after the conflict should focus on the West Bank and Gaza as one entity, a view shared by Borrell.
Safadi has frequently denounced the Hamas attacks on 7 October, but has taken the view that the conflict created Hamas, and its support among the Palestinian people reflects the anger with Israel’s occupation.
Both men said they believed the pause should be extended to make it sustainable and long-lasting while working for a political solution.
With all parties agreed at the summit on the need for a two-state solution, the only difference lay in how to achieve this.
Safadi challenged the international community, in effect the US, to say what it would do to put pressure on Israel to abandon its opposition to a two-state solution. He said there was no point in continuing to pay lip service to the solution if nothing was going to be done to implement it.
