This article was previously published on February 10, 2026, in The Jerusalem Post.
Summary
Both major Palestinian movements pursue the same ultimate objective: a single Palestinian state replacing Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of refugees to pre-1948 cities. Public symbols, official statements, and ideological platforms consistently reinforce this aim. Any acceptance of interim borders is presented as tactical rather than permanent. The core distinction between the movements lies in their methods, not their end goal.
Key Takeaways
- Official symbols and rhetoric consistently signal rejection of Israel’s legitimacy across the Palestinian political spectrum.
- References to the 1967 borders are framed as temporary steps rather than a final settlement.
- The primary difference between the movements is tactical approach, violent confrontation versus diplomatic and institutional pressure.
In January 2026, Rawhi Fattouh, chairman of the Palestinian National Council, a central body subordinate to the PLO, presented an honorary shield to the outgoing Chinese ambassador to the Palestinian Authority (PA).
The shield bore a map of a single “Palestine” encompassing the entire State of Israel, alongside an embroidered “key of return” – the quintessential symbol of the demand for millions of Palestinian refugees to return to cities and towns within sovereign Israel. Above the map appeared a single word written in English: “Palestine.”
This was not a marginal incident. It was a clear and unambiguous political message, not from Hamas, but from Israel’s supposed “partner,” the PLO.
A few days later, Jibril Rajoub, a senior Fatah official and secretary of the movement’s Central Committee, presented the Chinese ambassador with a similar shield. Once again: a map of all of Israel and the key of return. The message was conveyed clearly, without words.
Those who continue to speak of “Palestinian pragmatism” must first explain this image.
One Symbol, One Goal
The incident involving the Chinese ambassador was not anomalous. It reflects a consistent and deeply rooted expression of official Palestinian ideology.
Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the PA and the PLO, makes a point of wearing a key pin on his suit lapel at nearly every significant political speech – a symbol of refugees returning to their original homes. Not to the West Bank. Not to Gaza. But to Jaffa, Haifa, and Lod.
An examination of Fatah’s official website, in the “About Our Movement” section, reveals a picture no less severe than that of the Hamas Charter – the charter that suddenly “came to light” in the eyes of Israel and the West after October 7. Fatah’s official description explicitly calls for the elimination of the Zionist project in the Land of Israel. It states that “final victory will not be achieved until the flag of Palestine flies over the minarets, churches, and walls of Jerusalem… and the return of the refugees.”
The symbols reinforce the message. The emblem of Fatah, the ruling party in the PA, displays a map of “complete Palestine,” without any trace of the State of Israel, alongside crossed rifles. This is not a coincidental design choice, but an ideological declaration.
1967 as a Station, Not a Destination
When comparing Hamas’s charter, even in its revised version, with the language and symbolism found on Fatah’s official platforms, the conclusion is unavoidable: both movements share the same strategic goal.
That goal is the complete “liberation” of historic Palestine, the establishment of a single state from the river to the sea, Jerusalem as its capital, and an absolute refusal to recognize the legitimacy of any Jewish state.
Hamas’s 2017 document, often described as more “moderate,” speaks in precisely these terms. For both Hamas and Fatah, the 1967 lines are not a permanent solution, but a temporary phase, a tactical stage on the path toward the final objective.
The difference between them is not ideological. It is tactical.
Hamas Speaks Loudly, Fatah Whispers Diplomatically
One of the most painful lessons of the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre is the need to listen carefully to what the enemy says in its own voice, rather than through Western interpretive filters.
Hamas’s “End of Days” plan, which included the invasion of Israeli communities, mass murder, and abductions, was openly discussed, repeatedly rehearsed, and even published on the organization’s official website. This included a detailed military drill in September 2023 simulating the conquest of Kibbutz Be’eri.
The words were explicit. The preparations were visible. Yet in Israel and across the West, many chose not to listen.
The same mistake is now being repeated with Fatah, simply because it operates in suits, speaks the language of diplomacy, and employs “non-violent” symbolism.
The phrase “two states for two peoples” is a Western-Israeli invention. It has never been declared, not even once, by a Palestinian leader as a final goal. Yasser Arafat stated this openly in Arabic in his 1994 Johannesburg speech, when he compared the Oslo Accords to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: a temporary tactical agreement designed to buy time and accumulate power until conditions ripened.
Even then, many chose not to hear.
Looking Truth in the Eye
Thirty years after Oslo, after two bloody intifadas, repeated wars, and the devastation of October 7, it is no longer possible to continue ignoring these texts, symbols, and actions.
The Palestinian national movement, in all its shades, has one clear goal: one Palestine, a fully Palestinian Jerusalem, and the return of millions of refugees, a move that has one meaning: the end of the State of Israel’s existence.
The difference between Fatah and Hamas is not the goal, but the method. One seeks to destroy the house all at once. The other prefers to dismantle it brick by brick, through international institutions, diplomacy, and symbolism.
In both cases, the intended final result is identical. It is time to look truth in the eye.
