I’m sure they’ll agree to it in the short term, but the true goal is the pre-1948 borders.

It’s complicated. They’ve made noises both ways. It’s hard to say “Hamas’s position on it is x”. (That ambiguity could be said to be part of how negotiating works.)

The 2017 charter stated they want a Palestine with the Green Line borders, but doesn’t say “we recognise Israel” anywhere.

Hamas has several times been willing to accept the 67 border says a construct for a settlement. In that sense they’re far more palatable to the international consensus than Israel. They would never accept the right of Israelis existence but they do accept the fact of it.

Norman Finkelstein writes about this quite a bit. Obviously they would never accept the idea that Israel has a right to that land but they have been more open to accepting the international consensus of resolution 242 as the basis for a piece settlement

I would say it depends on what you mean by want in this case. Think of it like in the case of Korea. Did DPRK want a divided Korea? No, but they also didn’t want to be under the thumb of the West.

A true 2 state solution would mean peace for Palestine so yeah the probably want that. But it kinda doesnt matter because a 2 state solution is impossible as long as israel exists in the form it does now because it would continue its genocide restarting the war which isnt a solution at all.

I used to think a 2-state solution is a good idea, but then I realised that would entail the recognition of the illegal state of Israel. I have no dog in the race, but I can totally understand why a Palestinian would be against it.

It’s made extra murky because what constitutes an internationally recognized “state” has a long history of Eurocentric racism.