EPS-003 - European Position Statement - Hamas Armed Resistance

A Proposed European Position Statement

Scope of this Position Statement

EPS-001 evaluated an actor: Iran.

EPS-002 evaluated a policy: Israeli settlement expansion.

EPS-003 evaluates a strategy: Hamas armed resistance.

That distinction matters.

This statement is not an assessment of Palestinian self-determination. The European Declaration for Middle East Stability recognizes Palestinian self-determination as a legitimate and unresolved question.

The question here is narrower:

Does Hamas armed resistance move the region toward or away from the direction identified by the Declaration Compass?

---

European Objective

Europe seeks a stable Middle East in which Israelis and Palestinians can pursue security, dignity and self-determination without permanently denying those same goods to one another.

Europe recognizes that Palestinian national aspirations remain unresolved.

Europe also recognizes that occupation, displacement, blockade, civilian suffering and political exclusion have created deep and legitimate Palestinian grievances.

But Europe must distinguish between legitimate grievances and strategies that make peace less achievable.

Hamas armed resistance is such a strategy.

The EU has long used terrorism-related sanctions against persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts, and has expanded measures targeting Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad networks and individuals connected with violent actions.

---

Compass Assessment

(See; EPS-001 - European Position Statement - Iran and Middle East Stability)

Future

Hamas presents itself as defending Palestinian rights and resistance against occupation.

Europe recognizes that Palestinian rights and self-determination cannot be ignored.

However, armed resistance contributes to long-term stability only if it opens a path toward a viable political future. Hamas armed resistance does the opposite.
It narrows the political future of Palestinians by binding their national cause to military escalation, civilian suffering and international isolation.
It also denies Israelis confidence that Palestinian self-determination can coexist with Israeli security.

A strategy that makes one people’s future appear to depend upon the fear or disappearance of another cannot produce durable peace.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Hamas armed resistance does not move the region toward a viable future for both peoples.

---

Security

No people should be expected to live permanently under occupation, blockade, siege, dispossession or military domination. But no people can be expected to accept attacks on civilians as a legitimate route to political change.

The Declaration Compass asks whether a strategy contributes to security that can ultimately be shared. Hamas armed resistance fails that test.
It produces fear among Israelis. It exposes Palestinians to devastating military retaliation.
It strengthens Israeli hardline arguments that security can only be achieved through force. It weakens Palestinian diplomatic credibility.
It turns Palestinian suffering into a recurring consequence of a strategy that cannot deliver reciprocal security.

Compass Assessment: Strongly Negative.

Hamas armed resistance increases insecurity for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

---

Reconciliation

Reconciliation requires both peoples to believe that their history and future can be acknowledged without erasing the other.
Hamas armed resistance works against that possibility. Its strategy reinforces Israeli historical fear of elimination. It also traps Palestinian historical grievance inside permanent mobilization rather than future-oriented political construction.

The 1988 Hamas Covenant rejected peaceful initiatives and international conferences as contradicting the movement’s principles, while later Hamas documents have been more politically nuanced but still do not amount to recognition of Israel as a legitimate future partner.

Europe should therefore distinguish between Palestinian historical grievance, which must be acknowledged, and armed strategies that prevent grievance from becoming reconciliation.

Compass Assessment: Strongly Negative.

Hamas armed resistance obstructs the transformation of historical grievance into coexistence.

---

European Position Statement

Europe should reject Hamas armed resistance clearly and consistently.

But Europe’s argument should not be limited to counterterrorism. It should also be strategic.

Europe rejects Hamas armed resistance not because Palestinian grievances are illegitimate, but because this strategy has failed to create a credible path toward Palestinian self-determination, reciprocal security or reconciliation.

Hamas armed resistance does not advance Palestinian self-determination.
It damages it. It does not create security. It destroys it. It does not move history toward reconciliation. It locks history into recurring violence.

Europe should therefore continue to oppose Hamas military structures, financing networks and violent political leadership.

At the same time, Europe should avoid treating the rejection of Hamas armed resistance as a rejection of Palestinian rights.

That distinction is essential.

European diplomacy should support:

• Palestinian self-determination through political rather than armed means;
• protection of Palestinian civilian life;
• humanitarian access and reconstruction;
• accountable Palestinian governance;
• exclusion of armed strategies targeting civilians from legitimate politics;
• political initiatives that preserve a future for both peoples.

Europe’s message should be clear:
Palestinian dignity is legitimate.
Palestinian self-determination is legitimate.
Armed resistance that targets civilians and denies coexistence is not.

---

Compass Conclusion

The Compass assessment does not constitute a rejection of Palestinian national aspirations.

It is an assessment of a specific strategy.

Hamas armed resistance moves the region away from the direction identified by the European Declaration for Middle East Stability.
It weakens the future. It destroys security. It obstructs reconciliation.

Europe should therefore oppose Hamas armed resistance not only because terrorism must be rejected, but because the Declaration Compass shows that this strategy moves Israelis and Palestinians away from the relationship required for durable peace.

A future for Palestinians cannot be built through a strategy that makes a future for Israelis impossible.
A future for Israelis cannot be secured by ignoring Palestinian aspirations.

The road forward requires both truths at once.

 

EPS-002 - European Position Statement - Israeli Settlement Expansion

 

European Position Statements (EPS)

About the EPS Framework

European Position Statements apply the principles of the European Declaration for Middle East Stability to specific actors, policies and events.

Their purpose is not to determine who is right or wrong.

Their purpose is to evaluate whether developments move the region toward or away from long-term stability.

To do so, EPS uses the Declaration Compass:

Future
Does a policy contribute to a viable future for all peoples involved?

Security
Does a policy contribute to security that can ultimately be shared rather than permanently contested?

Reconciliation
Does a policy help transform historical grievance into coexistence and cooperation?

The Compass does not prescribe a final political settlement.
It provides a direction against which policies and developments can be evaluated.

The ultimate objective is a Middle East in which political entities increasingly conform to the principles of the European Declaration for Middle East Stability and where peace becomes possible because enough people feel that their history has been acknowledged and incorporated into a shared future.

---

EPS-002 - Europe’s Position on Israeli Settlement Expansion

A Proposed European Position Statement

 

Scope of this Position Statement

EPS-001 evaluated an actor: Iran.
EPS-002 evaluates a policy: Israeli settlement expansion.
That distinction matters.

This statement is not an assessment of Israel as a state. Previous Declaration assessments suggested that Israel possesses strong institutional foundations and remains substantially compatible with the principles of the European Declaration for Middle East Stability.

The question here is narrower:
Does Israeli settlement expansion move the region toward or away from the direction identified by the Declaration Compass?

---

European Objective

Europe seeks a stable Middle East in which Israelis and Palestinians can pursue security, dignity and self-determination without permanently denying those same goods to one another.

Europe recognizes Israel as a legitimate political entity with real security concerns.
Europe also recognizes that Palestinian self-determination remains unresolved.

European policy should therefore oppose developments that make a viable future for both peoples harder to achieve.

Israeli settlement expansion is one such development.

The EU has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on a two-state solution in line with relevant UN Security Council resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 states that Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a violation under international law.

---

Compass Assessment

(See; EPS-001 - European Position Statement - Iran and Middle East Stability)

Future

Settlement expansion narrows the practical space within which a future political arrangement can emerge.

This does not mean Europe must already know the exact final structure of peace. The future may ultimately take the form of two states, confederal arrangements, shared institutions, or another configuration developed by the peoples themselves.
But every future arrangement requires space in which both national projects can remain politically viable.

Settlement expansion reduces that space.
It fragments territory, deepens mistrust, and strengthens the perception that Palestinian self-determination is being progressively closed off.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Settlement expansion moves away from a viable future for both peoples.

---

Security

Supporters of settlement expansion often present it as a security measure.
At local or tactical level, some settlement patterns may be defended as buffers or strategic depth.

But the Declaration Compass asks a broader question: Does this policy contribute to security that can ultimately be shared?
On that test, settlement expansion performs poorly.

It may strengthen some immediate Israeli security positions, but it also increases friction, fuels grievance, encourages radicalization and weakens confidence that political resolution remains possible.

The result is not reciprocal security.
It is security for one side that increasingly appears to depend upon the permanent insecurity of the other.

Compass Assessment: Mixed to Negative.

Settlement expansion may be defended in tactical security terms, but it undermines the conditions for durable mutual security.

---

Reconciliation

Reconciliation requires both peoples to believe that their history and future are being seen.

Settlement expansion sends the opposite message to many Palestinians. It suggests that their land, political future and national horizon are being steadily reduced.
Whether framed as ideology, security policy or domestic politics, the effect is similar. It makes it harder for Palestinians to believe that coexistence remains available. It also strengthens maximalist narratives that claim negotiation cannot work.

For Israelis, settlement expansion may appear as continuity, security or national attachment.
For Palestinians, it is widely experienced as encroachment.
A policy that deepens this gap moves away from reconciliation.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Settlement expansion makes historical grievance harder to transform into coexistence.

---

European Position Statement

Europe should continue to oppose Israeli settlement expansion clearly and consistently.
But Europe’s argument should not be only legal. It should also be strategic.

Settlement expansion is not merely a violation of international law. It is a policy that moves the region away from the direction required for durable peace. It narrows the space for a future for both peoples. It weakens the possibility of shared security. It makes reconciliation more difficult.

Europe should therefore connect its opposition to settlement expansion directly to its broader objective: preserving the possibility of a political relationship in which Israeli and Palestinian futures can develop together.

European diplomacy should support:

·       a freeze on settlement expansion;

·       stronger opposition to settler violence;

·       protection of Palestinian civilian life and property;

·       preservation of territorial and institutional space for Palestinian self-determination;

·       political initiatives that keep future coexistence possible.

Recent Western sanctions targeting settler violence and settlement-linked networks show that policy tools are increasingly available when political will exists.

---

Compass Conclusion

The Compass assessment does not constitute a judgment on Israel as a state.
It is an assessment of a specific policy.

Israel may remain a legitimate and institutionally compatible regional actor while still pursuing policies that move the region away from the Declaration’s direction.

Israeli settlement expansion is such a policy. It weakens the future. It complicates security. It obstructs reconciliation.

Europe should therefore oppose settlement expansion not only because international law demands it, but because the European Declaration Compass shows that it moves Israelis and Palestinians away from the relationship required for durable peace.

EPS-001 - European Position Statement - Iran and Middle East Stability

 

European Position Statements (EPS)

About the EPS Framework

European Position Statements apply the principles of the European Declaration for Middle East Stability to specific actors, policies and events.

Their purpose is not to determine who is right or wrong. Their purpose is to evaluate whether developments move the region toward or away from long-term stability.

To do so, EPS uses the Declaration Compass:

Future

Does a policy contribute to a viable future for all peoples involved?

Security

Does a policy contribute to security that can ultimately be shared rather than permanently contested?

Reconciliation

Does a policy help transform historical grievance into coexistence and cooperation?

The Compass does not prescribe a final political settlement.
It provides a direction against which policies and developments can be evaluated.

The ultimate objective is a Middle East in which political entities increasingly conform to the principles of the European Declaration for Middle East Stability and where peace becomes possible because enough people feel that their history has been acknowledged and incorporated into a shared future.

---

EPS-001 - Iran and Middle East Stability

A Proposed European Position Statement

European Objective

Europe seeks a stable Middle East in which all peoples can pursue prosperity, security and self-determination without threatening the security and self-determination of others.

Europe recognizes that Iran is a major regional actor whose participation will be necessary for any durable regional security architecture.

Europe therefore seeks neither permanent confrontation with Iran nor the acceptance of policies that perpetuate regional conflict.

Europe’s objective is to encourage developments that align Iranian policies more closely with a future of regional stability, reciprocal security and eventual reconciliation.

---

Compass Assessment

Future

Iran consistently highlights the unresolved status of the Palestinian question.

Europe recognizes that Palestinian self-determination remains an essential component of any durable regional settlement. In this respect, Iran addresses a genuine and unresolved issue that cannot simply be ignored.

At the same time, support for Palestinian aspirations contributes to long-term stability only if it helps create a future in which both Palestinians and Israelis can live in security and dignity.
Policies that frame the conflict primarily in terms of victory, resistance or elimination do not provide such a future.

Europe therefore distinguishes between support for Palestinian rights and support for approaches that undermine the possibility of coexistence.

Compass Assessment: Mixed.

Iran raises legitimate questions concerning Palestinian aspirations but does not yet consistently align its policies with a future that accommodates both peoples.

---

Security

Iran possesses legitimate security interests and faces genuine security concerns of its own.

Europe recognizes Iran’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and right to self-defense.
At the same time, the pursuit of security through prolonged regional confrontation creates insecurity for all parties involved.
Support for military actors whose objectives are incompatible with coexistence undermines the emergence of a durable regional security framework.

Europe therefore encourages a gradual shift from deterrence through confrontation toward security through diplomacy, regional arrangements and confidence-building measures.

Compass Assessment: Mixed to Negative.

Iran’s security concerns are legitimate, but several instruments used to pursue them contribute to regional instability.

---

Reconciliation

The Middle East contains numerous unresolved historical grievances.
These include Palestinian dispossession, repeated wars, terrorism, foreign interventions, occupation, displacement and civilian suffering across multiple societies.

Europe believes that acknowledging these histories is necessary.
However, acknowledgement should serve reconciliation rather than perpetual mobilization.

Iran’s political discourse frequently emphasizes historical injustice. Less developed is a corresponding vision of how historical grievances can ultimately be transformed into coexistence.

Europe therefore encourages Iran to complement its advocacy for Palestinian rights with support for political arrangements capable of accommodating both Palestinian and Israeli futures.

Compass Assessment: Negative.

Current Iranian policy places greater emphasis on grievance and resistance than on reconciliation.

---

European Position Statement

Europe does not ask Iran to abandon support for Palestinian dignity, rights or self-determination.

Europe asks Iran to increasingly align that support with a regional future in which Palestinian and Israeli futures can coexist.

Europe believes that durable stability will not emerge through the permanent exclusion of Iran from regional affairs. Nor will it emerge through the permanent exclusion of Israel.

The challenge is not choosing between the security and aspirations of one people or another.
The challenge is constructing a regional framework in which these aspirations can increasingly develop together.

Europe therefore pursues dialogue with Iran while maintaining clear opposition to policies that undermine coexistence, reciprocal security and reconciliation.

---

Compass Summary

Iran occupies a paradoxical position within the Middle East.
It raises legitimate concerns regarding unresolved Palestinian aspirations and regional inequities.
At the same time, aspects of its current strategy contribute to the continuation of the very conflict it seeks to address.

The Declaration Compass suggests that Europe should neither isolate Iran nor align with its current regional approach.
Instead, Europe should seek to encourage an evolution from resistance toward coexistence, from confrontation toward reciprocal security, and from grievance toward reconciliation.

Such a course would not resolve the conflict overnight. But it would move the region in the direction indicated by the European Declaration for Middle East Stability.