Let us be unequivocal: the call to deproscribe Hamas is not simply misguided; it is an open invitation to normalize the very worst forms of terror in the name of "resistance". If allowed to succeed, this dangerous campaign would not only weaken the fight against terrorism but also embolden radical Islamists, permitting them to rebrand barbarism as righteousness. It would establish a perverse moral equivalence between legitimate political struggles and actions so heinous they defy any definition of human decency.

And if the UK is so willing to entertain such a notion, one must ask—would we ever consider deproscribing ISIS? The push to remove Hamas from the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations is a glaring and grotesque example of how the West is increasingly being pressured to overlook the most basic principles of justice and law. Hamas, a group responsible for the brutal slaughter of over 1,200 Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, has long advocated for the obliteration of the State of Israel.

The organisation’s charter calls for the destruction of Jews worldwide—a genocidal ideology that echoes the darkest chapters of history. Hamas is not a freedom fighting group, as it’s so often framed by its apologists, nor is it a legitimate resistance movement. It is a violent, radical, and hateful organisation bent on the destruction of its enemies, without regard for innocent lives, human rights, or the rule of law.

Yet, some are attempting to frame Hamas as an expression of resistance, a group fighting for the rights of Palestinians. It is a position so twisted that it defies any rational or moral argument. To those who make such claims, let us ask this simple question: if Hamas is a "resistance" group, what exactly are they resisting? And why must we, as a civilised society, entertain the possibility that those whose goal is the genocide of an entire people could be welcomed back into the fold of legitimate political discourse?

Should the UK deproscribe Hamas, we would see the very real and terrifying consequences of legitimising terrorism under the convenient, yet dangerous, guise of “resistance.”

The message that would be sent is that violence, extremism, and the targeting of civilians can be justified if it serves a political purpose. This would not only undercut the moral clarity of the West but would also provide fuel for extremist narratives, which insist that terror is an acceptable means of pursuing political or religious goals. It would provide a dangerous precedent, opening the door to a broader redefinition of jihad, turning it into a normal, even admirable, expression of faith.

This is more than a theoretical danger. It is happening now. Around the globe, from Gaza to Tehran to London, extremists have long sought to co-opt legitimate causes as a shield for their violence. And when Hamas is allowed to claim that their actions are justified under the banner of resistance, they empower the same radical Islamist rhetoric that fuels groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS. Terrorists will not have to hide behind thinly veiled excuses for their barbarity; instead, they can claim to be fighting for a noble cause, resisting the "oppression" of Israel or the West, and be celebrated for doing so.

Let us be clear: this is not a political disagreement about borders or sovereignty—it is a matter of human rights. Hamas does not fight for peace, nor for a two-state solution.

Hamas fights for the complete eradication of Israel, and by extension, the Jewish people. Its crimes are not just political; they are deeply rooted in an ideology of hate and intolerance that seeks to destroy the very fabric of society.

If Hamas is to be deproscribed, what will come next? Will we soon see calls for the deproscription of ISIS, Al-Qaeda, or other jihadist groups? Let us remind ourselves of the atrocities carried out by these groups—acts of terror so brutal, so horrific, that they defy belief. Will the West suddenly come to the conclusion that such violence is merely the "expression of a deeply felt grievance"? It would be a fatal error, one that sends a message to radicals everywhere: violence works. If you kill enough people, wreak enough havoc, spread enough hate, perhaps the world will excuse you, too.

The double standards here are almost laughable—if they weren’t so dangerous. In a world where ISIS has been widely condemned and its actions categorically rejected as terrorism, the idea of deproscribing Hamas is morally bankrupt. Imagine for a moment that a similar movement called for the deproscription of ISIS in the UK. Would we sit idly by and allow such a grotesque proposal to fester? Of course not. Yet, for reasons that are unclear, Hamas—whose track record is just as reprehensible, if not worse—is given a platform, and their terror redefined as an act of political struggle.

To those who support this attempt to deproscribe Hamas, we must ask: at what point do you draw the line? If Hamas is removed from the list of proscribed organisations, what happens to the sanctity of international law? What happens to the very idea that terror is unacceptable, regardless of the cause it claims to champion?

The world has learned nothing from the horrors of the past. We have witnessed the rise of extremism again and again, as history’s lessons are swept aside in the name of political expediency. The deproscription of Hamas is a dangerous flirtation with an ideology that has no place in a civilised society. By attempting to normalise the actions of this group, we invite a future in which terror is justified and excused.

The UK government must stand firm and reject this call. To do otherwise is to condone the legitimisation of violence, to tacitly endorse the barbarism that Hamas represents, and to open the door for even more atrocities to be carried out in the name of "resistance".

The message is clear: Hamas must remain on the list of proscribed organisations, and terror must never be legitimised. The UK must stand firm against extremism, and reject any attempts to normalise the actions of those who wish to destroy Israel, and by extension, peace itself.

Would we ever consider deproscribing ISIS? The question answers itself. So why on Earth should we entertain the idea of deproscribing Hamas?