The announcement by Hamas’ leader in Gaza Ismael Haniyah that the movement would accept a peace treaty with Israel and a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders if Palestinians approve it in a referendum is a development of immense importance. It is a political icebreaker. Until now, Hamas has stuck rigidly to the one-state solution, insisting that there could never be any recognition of Israel and that the only acceptable settlement would be for the Palestinians to be given all that land that between 1923 and 1948 comprised British mandated-Palestine.

It is obvious that there can be no effective or workable solution to the Palestinian issue without taking Hamas into account or by sidelining Gaza, which it firmly controls. Unfortunately, Hamas has been out on a political limb. Its rejection of the Arab Peace Plan, accepted by all Arab states and based on the original proposals of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, meant that it put itself outside the peace process. It remains to be seen if Haniyah’s proposal has been agreed by the Hamas leadership in Damascus. It would be strange, though not impossible, if it had not. Assuming, however, that the movement is speaking with one voice this has to be seen as a remarkably bold and timely stroke. In now effectively saying yes to the Arab Peace Plan, Hamas has brought itself firmly back into the Arab fold. Indeed, It has done far more than that. It shows itself capable of being pragmatic and realistic, it has bridged a major chasm between itself and the Palestinian Authority and, in taking the initiative, it places the ball firmly in the Israelis’ and the Americans’ court. It is now up to them to respond.

We can predict with near certainty that the Israelis will do their best to either ignore this sea change in Hamas policy or ridicule it. They know that if they take it seriously, they will have to make meaningful counteroffers — something they have not been prepared to do so far. They will be desperate to continue presenting Hamas as a terrorist organization with which there can be no dialogue.

The key to changing that is in Washington’s hands. If President Barack Obama takes this change of heart at face value and responds positively by talking to Hamas, Israel’s protests will have no effect. He has to do that. He says he wants to bring about peace in the Middle East. Suddenly, a door has unexpectedly opened that may allow that to happen. He must seize the chance. Moreover, if he does open channels of communication with Hamas and it later reneges on its new line, it — not he — will be to blame. Hamas’ decision cannot have been an easy one. It knows it could be outflanked by a new rejectionist movement that sees Haniyah’s statement as treason. For the moment that possibility can be ignored. Just as the Palestinian Authority is firmly in charge of the West Bank, Hamas is firmly in charge of Gaza. The rejectionists at present do not have a platform.

In grasping reality and backing down from his previous hard-line position, Hamas has radically altered the Palestinian paradigm and brought itself back center stage in the peace process. In doing so, it has provided a major impetus to that process. The real question is whether Israel wants peace instead of a peace process that only serves to hide its real intensions. Those who accuse Hamas of playing a spoiler’s role should realize that Israel has yet to fully endorse the Arab Peace Plan.