For some weeks, optimistic rumors have circulated that the Gaza-based terrorist organization Hamas was poised to issue a new charter, and a draft was even leaked to the Arabic-language press. On Monday, Hamas’s outgoing leader, Khaled Meshal, officially released the document, which, because it emphasizes war with “Zionists” and the “Israeli entity” rather than with all Jews as such, has been taken in some quarters as a sign of moderation. Kate Havard and Grant Rumley explain why it is not:

Contrary to reports, this new document neither replaces the [existing] charter nor abrogates [it]. While it is a departure from the faction’s 1988 manifesto, it is not a sign of moderation. Rather, it is an effort to ease international isolation and appeal to the rival Fatah party’s base of support.

Most notable in the new document is what is not included: any reference to the Muslim Brotherhood, [of which] Hamas is an offshoot. While that was viewed as a benefit during the 2011 Arab Spring, it is now decidedly a vulnerability. With the rise of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt, the Brotherhood and all of its offshoots—including Hamas—have been subject to a merciless campaign designed to weaken the movement. . . . Hamas is hoping its new document softens Sisi’s [attitude toward it]. Hamas is also eager to win favor with other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Both have soured on Hamas’s politics, thanks in part to the group’s ongoing ties to Iran. This was almost certainly also part of the Hamas calculus.

Observers yesterday were quick to point out that Hamas acknowledged the 1967 borders. . . . Yet . . . the document defines Hamas’s goal as controlling the land “from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west.” Observers have also noted that the new Hamas document omits calls for “obliteration” of Israel, but, in fact, it merely replaces that with a total rejection of the “Zionist entity.” The document calls for “all forms of resistance”—a euphemism for terrorism in Hamas parlance.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”