Hamas’s founding program is Islamist: its 1988 covenant says Islam supplies the movement’s program and describes Israel’s destruction as an objective. Fatah arose as an Arab nationalist movement and became the dominant faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The two movements therefore differ in both their founding language and their relationship to Israel and the PLO.
What the founding documents say
Hamas published its covenant on August 18, 1988. Article 1 says the movement draws its program and guidance from Islam; the opening passage says Israel will continue to exist until Islam obliterates it. The text also uses antisemitic material from the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These are explicit statements in Hamas’s own founding document, not a description imposed by its opponents. The 1988 Hamas Covenant records the movement’s original program.
The PLO’s 1968 National Charter framed its claims as a national struggle. It called armed struggle the only way to liberate the land and rejected Israel’s establishment. Fatah became the PLO’s leading faction in the late 1960s. Its later political role cannot be reduced to the 1968 charter: the organization’s position changed through the PLO’s formal negotiations and commitments. The 1968 National Charter shows the PLO’s earlier position.
What the 1993 letters changed
On September 9, 1993, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, accepted UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, renounced terrorism and committed to a peaceful resolution through negotiations. Rabin replied that Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Arab people and would negotiate with it. Those are the terms of the exchange; Israel recognized the PLO, while the PLO recognized Israel. The State Department’s publication of the letters gives their full text.
Hamas’s later policy document
Hamas’s 2017 policy document used different language from its 1988 covenant and accepted a state on the 1949 armistice lines as a formula of national consensus. It expressly said the document did not replace the covenant. The policy therefore did not constitute recognition of Israel or a renunciation of armed struggle. The 2006 election and subsequent Gaza takeover show how this ideological divide became a contest over actual government; see the election and takeover chronology.