Remember Hudaybiyyah: Why the Israel-Hamas ceasefire is not a lasting solution

This article is authored by Prabhu Dayal, former ambassador, New Delhi.

On May 10, 1994, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat gave an address in a mosque in the South African city of Johannesburg. He was asked about the Oslo Accords with Israel: “Why did you sign an agreement with the devil?” His answer was short, sharp, and loaded with history: “Remember Hudaybiyyah.” All the Muslims gathered in the mosque nodded with instant understanding.

Gaza (AP)

Arafat had compared the Oslo Accords to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, a temporary peace treaty between Prophet Muhammad and the tribe of Quraysh which controlled Mecca.The agreement significantly decreased tensions and the constant threat of conflict between the two cities. This agreement was later broken by the Quraysh and resulted in the conquest of Mecca by Prophet Muhammad.

In October 2025, after discussing a potential ceasefire, Hamas supporters reportedly distributed flyers proclaiming: "A truce like the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, followed by a conquest like the conquest of Mecca". This explicit messaging indicates the group uses this Treaty to rally its base and signal its long-term objectives.

Hamas has referenced the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah as a guiding principle, viewing it as a model for using a temporary truce as a strategic tactic. This interpretation portrays the ceasefire not as a permanent peace agreement but as a period to rebuild and prepare for a future confrontation.

Hamas leaders, including its founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar, have cited this treaty to justify accepting a temporary ceasefire. They see it as a strategic retreat to gain time and strength, in contrast to a genuine peace deal, which they have historically rejected as a betrayal of Islamic principles. As an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas adopted this reading from its parent organisation. The Muslim Brotherhood has also historically promoted the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah as a model for diplomatic manoeuvering.

Hamas does not believe in peace with Israel based on its historical actions and stated ideology, though its public positions and actions regarding ceasefires can be complex and are often seen as a strategic rather than a permanent measure.

Hamas's 1988 charter called for the destruction of Israel and advocated for armed struggle against it. In 2017, Hamas released a new policy document that accepted the idea of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, but it explicitly stated that this would not constitute recognition of Israel. Hamas leaders clarified that the fight was against the "Zionist project," not against Judaism, and that the 1988 charter was now a "historical document".

However, this new position was a tactical move rather than a genuine shift towards a two-State solution as it did not include a recognition of Israel's right to exist. Hamas views armed resistance as a legitimate means to liberate Palestinian land. Ceasefire agreements are often viewed as temporary truces that can be used to regroup and rearm, rather than steps toward permanent peace.

Ultimately, Hamas's core ideology, its refusal to recognise Israel, and its history of using violence as a tool of resistance indicate that it does not fundamentally believe in a lasting peace with the State of Israel. While it may enter into tactical ceasefires and political agreements for specific, limited purposes, these moves do not signify a change in its long-term objective.

Recent news reports and public opinion polls indicate that Israelis largely distrust Hamas's motives in the current peace process. Most Israeli leaders say Hamas' ultimate goal is eliminating Israel, and that for decades, it has used violence, including suicide bombings, stabbings, and rocket attacks, in pursuit of this goal. While Hamas has issued ambiguous statements about long-term truces, most Israelis think that its commitment to armed resistance remains a fundamental part of its ideology. Israeli analysts also suggest that Hamas spent years strategically deceiving Israeli decision-makers into thinking it was deterred, while secretly planning the October 7, 2023 attack. This has led to a profound breakdown of trust in Hamas's intentions.

The brutal attack on October 7, 2023, is widely seen in Israel as proof of Hamas's genocidal intentions. Hamas's use of rape, torture, and the targeting of civilians has reinforced the Israeli public's view of the group as fundamentally irreconcilable. Though a ceasefire took hold in October 2025, it is regarded as fragile and incomplete. Hamas has refused to agree to disarmament, which Israel considers a non-negotiable term for a permanent resolution. This refusal is a major sticking point and feeds into Israeli suspicions that Hamas will not lay down its weapons.

The fundamental disconnect between Israeli demands for disarmament and Hamas's refusal to lay down its arms means the deal's next phases face major obstacles. Without a resolution on this core issue and a rebuilding of trust, the potential for a long-term resolution remains low.

Summing up, Hamas views any temporary ceasefire or peace agreement as a temporary truce rather than a lasting resolution. This perspective is rooted in Hamas's ideological commitment to armed struggle against Israeli control over Palestinian land. On the other hand, following the October 7, 2023, attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many other senior Israeli leaders have stated that a primary goal of the subsequent military campaign was the destruction of Hamas' military and governing capabilities in Gaza. The situation has evolved with a multi-phase ceasefire agreement, but the long-term objective of dismantling Hamas remains a major plank of Israel's policy. Therefore, the current ceasefire is highly fragile because significant issues, such as Hamas's disarmament remain unresolved.

This article is authored by Prabhu Dayal, former ambassador, New Delhi.