While the military wing of the Gaza-controlling organisation should remain proscribed, he said, its political wing must be “engaged with for the purposes of finding peace”.

Hamas’s political wing is led by Khalil al-Hayya, who helped plot the devastating October 7 attacks.

The Palestinian political leader has also described the attack, which killed at least 1,200, as a “source of pride for our people” and a “great act” in separate instances.

But Mr Greer insisted there was a clear distinction between the two groups.

Asked about his position, he said: “For the purposes of peace negotiations, Hamas the political party being on the proscribed list is actually a barrier to peace.

“The UK government only did that a couple of years ago.”

The Green co-leader, who was just 21 years old when first elected as an MSP in 2016, drew a comparison to the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin, arguing peace in Northern Ireland could never have been achieved if the political group was banned.

He added: “Since the October 7 attacks, we’ve clarified that the military wing absolutely should be proscribed because of these actions.

“But the political wing needs to be engaged with for the purposes of finding peace, just as we here in the UK did in Northern Ireland.”

While the Greens in England have recently become embroiled in controversy after passing their “Zionism is racism” motion, the Scottish Greens have long shared the view.

In 2015, the party passed a motion calling for Hamas to no longer be described as a terrorist organisation, and condemned “Zionism as a racist ideology based on Jewish supremacy in Palestine”.

The Government first proscribed the military wing of Hamas in 2001, but under Sir Tony Blair, viewed the political wing as a separate entity.

But in 2021, it was determined Hamas was a “complex but single terrorist organisation”, and as a result, both sections were proscribed.

When pressed if there remained a distinction between the political and terrorist wings of Hamas, Mr Greer claimed all parties in peace talks would have committed war crimes.

He said: “If we want to reach a peaceful solution for Israel and Palestine, that requires negotiations between parties who have all committed war crimes.

“Hamas have committed war crimes. The Israeli government have committed war crimes.”

He added: “The reality is Hamas and the Israeli government are guilty of grave war crimes. The only way we can end genocide and the war crimes is with a peaceful resolution. That requires these parties being brought round the table.

“A ceasefire was agreed to because of negotiations with Hamas and the Israeli government. The Israeli government have since breached that ceasefire and murdered about 1,500 people.”

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Greens told The Times the party’s “up-to-date” formal position on the conflict was from a 2023 conference vote, when Greer brought a motion condemning Hamas’s October 7 attacks, as well as Israel’s response.

Scottish Greens Leader Says Hamas’s ‘Political Wing’ Should NOT Be Proscribed as a Terrorist Group

A controversial debate over terrorism, political representation and the conflict in the Middle East has resurfaced after the leader of the Scottish Greens reportedly argued that Hamas’s political wing should not be separately proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

The comments raise difficult questions about how governments distinguish between political activity and armed violence, particularly when dealing with organisations that combine political structures with military operations. They also come amid continuing public disagreement over the Israel–Palestine conflict, the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the appropriate response to attacks against civilians.

The issue is politically sensitive because Hamas is not simply a conventional political party. It has an extensive organisational history, has exercised political authority in Gaza and has an armed wing responsible for attacks, including the 7 October 2023 assault on Israel. The group has also been responsible for violence against civilians over many years.

Any proposal to treat different parts of the organisation differently therefore raises questions about whether political and military structures can realistically be separated.

The debate over political and military wings

The argument described in the headline centres on whether the political wing of Hamas should be treated differently from its military wing. Supporters of distinguishing between the two may argue that political activity, negotiations and the possibility of future diplomatic engagement should not automatically be treated as equivalent to armed operations.

Others argue that the distinction is misleading when different parts of an organisation share leadership, resources, strategic objectives or responsibility for its overall activities. From this perspective, separating the political structure from the armed wing could create legal loopholes or make it more difficult to prevent support from reaching the organisation.

The disagreement is not merely about terminology. It concerns the practical consequences of proscription, including restrictions on membership, fundraising, public support and other activities that may be prohibited under national law.

It is also important to distinguish between criticising a government’s policy, supporting Palestinian rights and endorsing Hamas. These are not interchangeable positions. People can oppose the actions of the Israeli government, advocate a Palestinian state or demand a ceasefire without supporting attacks on civilians or the activities of an armed organisation.

Equally, condemnation of Hamas does not require opposition to Palestinian civilians receiving humanitarian assistance or having their political rights protected.

Hamas and the United Kingdom’s legal position

The legal context is central to understanding the controversy. The United Kingdom proscribed Hamas in its entirety in November 2021, extending the existing ban on its military wing to include the organisation as a whole.

That decision means British law does not recognise a separate, legally permitted Hamas political wing that can simply be exempted from the ban. The organisation’s political and military components are covered by the same proscription.

Under UK terrorism legislation, membership of a proscribed organisation and inviting support for it can constitute criminal offences. Other restrictions apply to activities such as arranging meetings in support of a banned group or displaying symbols in circumstances covered by the law.

The precise legal consequences depend on the conduct involved and the relevant statutory provisions. Criticism of proscription policy, discussion of Hamas in an academic or journalistic context, and advocacy for Palestinian rights are not automatically equivalent to supporting a proscribed organisation.

This distinction matters because public debate must be able to address terrorism legislation while remaining clear about the difference between political disagreement and conduct prohibited by law.

Ross Greer draws comparisons with Northern Ireland’s peace process

The Scottish Greens co-leader, Ross Greer, reportedly compared the question of engaging with Hamas to the role played by Sinn Féin during the Northern Ireland peace process. His argument is that negotiations may require contact with political representatives associated with organisations involved in violence, even when their histories are deeply controversial. <Cite refs={[“turn277946news7″,”turn277946search3”]} />

The comparison raises an important point about conflict resolution: negotiations sometimes involve actors whom governments and sections of the public regard as unacceptable partners. However, the circumstances of each conflict differ, and historical comparisons do not automatically establish that the same approach would work in the Middle East.

Supporters of Greer’s position may argue that excluding an organisation entirely from political engagement could make a negotiated settlement harder to achieve. They may also point out that diplomatic contact does not necessarily amount to endorsement of an organisation’s ideology or actions.

Opponents counter that Hamas’s political and military structures cannot reliably be treated as independent entities. The UK government reached that conclusion in 2021, arguing that the distinction between the two wings had become artificial because of their connections, shared leadership and strategic direction. <Cite refs={[“turn277946search0″,”turn277946search5”]} />

The comparison with Northern Ireland therefore remains a matter of political and strategic disagreement rather than a straightforward historical parallel.

The reaction and political consequences

The comments are likely to generate debate within Scotland and across the wider UK political landscape. Critics may argue that calling for a change to Hamas’s legal status risks weakening the UK’s approach to counterterrorism, particularly given the organisation’s record of attacks against civilians.

Others may focus on whether existing laws leave sufficient room for diplomatic efforts intended to end hostilities and secure a lasting settlement. For them, the question is not necessarily whether Hamas should be supported, but whether a legal framework should prevent contact that might contribute to negotiations.

The distinction between these arguments is important. A person can advocate diplomatic engagement while condemning terrorism, just as someone can support proscription while believing that humanitarian negotiations must continue.

Any proposal to change the law would also require scrutiny of its practical consequences. Policymakers would need to consider how a change could affect criminal investigations, restrictions on financial support, international cooperation and the UK’s ability to respond to threats.

A debate with no easy answers

The controversy surrounding Ross Greer’s reported comments reflects a wider dilemma confronting governments dealing with violent conflicts: how to maintain a firm stance against terrorism while preserving possible routes towards peace.

The UK government’s position is currently clear. Hamas is proscribed in its entirety, not merely its military wing, and any change would require a formal alteration of that legal position. <Cite refs={[“turn277946search0″,”turn277946search1”]} />

At the same time, debates about proscription and diplomacy should not obscure the rights and needs of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis. Civilians must be protected, humanitarian assistance must reach those who need it, and any lasting settlement will require serious attention to security, political representation and the future governance of the region.

Greer’s reported intervention has brought those difficult questions back into the political spotlight. Whether his proposed distinction between Hamas’s political and military wings could contribute to peace, or instead create unacceptable security risks, remains disputed.

What is clear is that the issue demands careful examination rather than slogans alone. Any change to Britain’s approach would need to be assessed against the evidence, the legal consequences and the prospects for a durable settlement that protects civilians and addresses the underlying conflict.