The Reductionism of the Gaza Conflict

The discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often oversimplified by reducing Palestinian resistance to Hamas alone. Such reductionist rhetoric not only obscures the historical and political complexity of the situation but also reinforces narratives that serve to justify Israel's ongoing occupation and apartheid-like policies in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Although Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip since 2006, their ideology does not represent all Palestinian political thought. Hamas, which emerged in 1987 during the First Intifada as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, has consistently rejected a two-state solution, calling for the liberation of all historical Palestine. However, it is important to note that the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah—the dominant political factions in the West Bank—have long advocated for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, in alignment with international law and UN resolutions. The conflation of all Palestinian resistance with Hamas, therefore, is not only inaccurate but politically expedient for those seeking to delegitimise Palestinian national aspirations.

Since Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, which saw the removal of settlements and permanent ground forces, Gaza has remained under strict Israeli control. Israel continues to manage its airspace, sea access, borders (with the help of Egypt), population registry, and basic utilities. The UN and international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have consistently referred to Gaza as occupied territory due to Israel's effective control. The idea that Gaza's independence in 2005 ended occupation is a misleading claim that ignores the ongoing blockade and repeated military incursions, which have devastated infrastructure and caused massive civilian casualties.

The West Bank, meanwhile, remains under direct military occupation, with Israel maintaining expansive control through settlements, checkpoints, and a permit system that severely restricts Palestinian movement. As of 2024, over 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in settlements that violate international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Israeli state continues to expand these settlements despite global condemnation, undermining the possibility of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state. The entrenchment of these settlements, along with the construction of the separation wall and policies of home demolitions and land expropriation, have led human rights organizations to label Israel's regime as one of apartheid.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's policies have deepened this crisis. While publicly opposing Hamas, Netanyahu’s government engaged in covert and overt coordination with Hamas to weaken the Palestinian Authority and derail prospects for a unified Palestinian negotiating partner. Trade agreements and the easing of economic restrictions at strategic moments were used to prop up Hamas’s rule in Gaza, creating a political divide that has made peace negotiations more difficult. This strategy has allowed Netanyahu to argue that "there is no partner for peace," reinforcing the status quo and justifying continued settlement expansion and military control.

Netanyahu’s political survival has also been intimately tied to war and security crises. Facing corruption charges and dwindling public support, his administration has frequently escalated military operations in Gaza, fueling nationalist sentiment and diverting attention from domestic issues. This has contributed to cycles of violence that further undermine the prospects of peace.

The creation of Israel in 1948 was influenced not only by Zionist ambitions but also by the geopolitical aims of Western powers. British imperial interests in the Suez region and strategic attempts to enlist Jewish support during the First World War culminated in the Balfour Declaration and later British facilitation of Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Sykes-Picot Agreement and post-war mandates institutionalized colonial partitioning in the region, embedding long-term instability.

Israel’s establishment also played a Cold War role, becoming a key ally of Western powers in a region where nationalist and leftist movements were gaining traction. As such, its strategic importance often shielded it from meaningful accountability for its policies toward Palestinians.

In this context, focusing solely on Hamas as the face of Palestinian resistance serves as an ideological distraction. It infantilises the debate and prevents critical engagement with the structural conditions—occupation, apartheid, displacement—that generate and sustain resistance in its many forms.

Rather than accepting narratives that paint Israel as merely defending itself from Hamas, it is essential to understand the broader material and historical context. True peace will not emerge from military dominance or rhetorical deflection. It requires acknowledging Palestinian self-determination, ending the occupation, dismantling apartheid structures, and creating a just solution that addresses the rights of refugees, the status of Jerusalem, and the borders of a future Palestinian state.

As internationalists and socialists, our commitment must lie with justice, not with the ideological justifications of any state power. Supporting Palestinian liberation does not equate to endorsing any one political faction. It means opposing systems of oppression wherever they exist and advocating for a future built on equality, freedom, and collective security for all people in the region.