Transnational frames of the Hamas—Israeli conflict

The large-scale attacks by Hamas from Gaza into Israel have made a global impact. The violence was unexpected, and its scope has been shocking. Hundreds of Israeli citizens have been murdered; buildings and infrastructure have been destroyed. Most attention has been paid to a festival massacre, close to the Gaza border, in which hundreds of people were killed by an early assault of Hamas fighters. Likely hundreds of Israeli soldiers and civilians, including foreigners, have been abducted and taken back to Gaza. As more becomes known of their identities, it seems that amongst them is a significant number of Americans and British nationals, as well as Southeast Asian workers who have been killed or abducted, including Thai and Nepali. As of Monday, fighting is still ongoing, as the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) are trying to clear Israeli territory from Hamas fighters. At the same time, high numbers of rockets are still being launched, both from Israel into Gaza and vice versa. The unprecedented mobilization of 300,000 Israeli reservists suggests that the Netanyahu government may be planning a large-scale military operation, as such potentially escalating the conflict even further.

There are many questions how the Netanyahu government, a new, extreme right-wing coalition, did not see this assault coming. Supported by the powerful Mossad, the Israeli government would be expected to know of any attack of such scale. This is especially true if, as many analyses have immediately suggested, Hamas had international support for its operation. How would such an elaborate coordination manage to stay under Israel’s radar? And how about Benjamin Netanyahu’s role? It is telling that both media and politicians in Israel have already put (partial) blame for the violence on the prime minister. An editorial in Haaretz immediately blamed Netanyahu directly, writing that “the disaster that befell Israel on the holiday of Simchat Torah is the clear responsibility of one person: Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Israel’s intelligence failure also raises the question what the coming days and weeks will bring—in other words, what else the Israelis may have missed. Especially worrying are analysts’ concerns that Hezbollah or even other state actors like Iran or Afghanistan could become involved in this conflict, escalating it into a regional war that would threaten the very existence of the state of Israel. In any case, the attacks will have an enormous impact on Israeli politics and society, which were already quite unstable and polarized this year.

Responses from other governments in the region and throughout the world have come quickly. That is not surprising, not only given the magnitude of the attack, but also given the important and sometimes almost divine status that Israel has been given in the West. I want to briefly explain my thoughts on this international response on the situation in Israel.

Problems in current discourse

First of all, most of the statements made by governments around the world are as expected. Mostly, they call for an immediate ceasefire, return of Israeli hostages from Gaza, and a peace process at the negotiation table. There are some logical but noteworthy differences in tone between governments’ statements, however. European and North American governments express “full solidarity” and “full support for the right to defend itself” for Israel, calling the Hamas attack “unprecedented” or even “unprovoked”. Others, including the African Union and Brazil, pay much more attention to the root causes of the attack, denouncing Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory and the de facto imprisonment of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. It is not difficult to observe that countries in the global South tend to support Palestine, especially those that have undergone a decolonial struggle themselves.

In the discourse about the Hamas­–Israel conflict—both by governments and people—there are a few things that stand out to me. They have been summarized in the illustration. First, choice of words matters, especially in the context of a tense conflict that evokes many emotions amongst many people. Since the Hamas attack began on Saturday, there have been countless phallacies, frames, and misphrasings that do not contribute to any serious discourse about the Palestine–Israel conflict and the reasons behind the current violence. As an important example, ‘Hamas’ is not the same as ‘Palestine’. Hamas is an organization that has been recognized as a terrorist group by the European Union and the United States; Palestine is a nation that has been recognized as state by an overwhelming majority of countries. Barely half of the Palestinian people support Hamas, and it is likely that they would prefer other political representation—if there were any good alternatives. Hamas’ violence is not supported by most Palestinians, who are primary victims of this violence themselves; similarly, they know the current Hamas attack will cause extreme harm to the Palestinian community in Gaza once Israel’s retaliation fully commences. Thus, there should be a clear distinction between ‘Hamas’ and ‘Palestine’. (There are too many other problematic frames in current discourse to mention here. They include the notion that pro-Palestinian sentiment equals anti-Zionism and antisemitism or, for that matter, that anti-Zionism equals antisemitism. Frames like these are not only false, but they sabotage any normal discussion, quite similar to the Godwin.)

Second, while the attack on Israeli civilians is horrific and unjustifiable, this should not draw away attention from the decades-long suffering of Palestinians, especially in Gaza. As I noted before, this is what most non-Western government statements have done: while acknowledging that the Hamas attacks are wrong, they point out that the root cause of this violence is the perennial suffering of the Palestinian people. It is a mistake that the West does this so little. While Dutch PM Rutte did acknowledge the suffering of Palestinian people in his early statements, he only mentioned this in the context of Hamas’ terror, leaving out Israel’s oppression of Palestine. In a not-so-coherent interview on Monday, Minister for Justice and Peace Yesilgöz stated that “now would not be the time” to talk about Israel’s expansionism under Netanyahu, nor would it be “appropriate” to criticize Israel’s military response to Hamas. This Israel-centric discourse in the West will not stimulate a constructive effort for a balanced peace process between Israel and Palestine or Hamas. Instead, it is necessary to acknowledge violence on both sides, and see such violence in the right proportions.

To understand the Hamas attacks, anger in Palestine, and support for both Hamas and Palestine in the entire MENA region, there indeed has to be an acknowledgement of the ways in which the Israeli government has terrorized the Palestinian people. International criticism of Israel’s killing of Palestinian children, the murder of the American-Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, and continued expansion of illegal settlements on the West Bank has been disturbingly muted—and there is so much more. It is, as someone summarized, as if “Israelis are actively killed,[ while] Palestinians just magically die.” Palestinians, especially in Gaza, are understandably desparate. This can have large consequences that extend beyond Gaza’s borders, especially when some of those in Gaza radicalize and become part of extremist, violent organizations, like Hamas. It is part of the reason why the current decision by the European Union, as well as Germany and Austria, to suspend financial support for Palestine in response to the Hamas attack is so wrong; amidst Israel’s oppression, the West should support Palestinians as much as it can, and not punish them for the actions of Hamas.* (And again, Hamas and Palestine are not the same. At least PM Rutte understood this when explaining the Dutch government’s continued financial support for Palestine, underscoring that “the Netherlands does not finance Hamas.”)

Palestinians have captured an Israeli tank at the Gaza–Israel border (7 October 2023).

Palestine’s wider anticolonial struggle

Third, the international community is absolutely correct in stating that Israel has the right to defend itself. The IDF has the right to expel Hamas fighters from Israeli territory. However, Israel does not have the right to commit war crimes. Unfortunately, the IDF has a large and well-documented history of violating human rights, and the indiscriminate bombing of apartment buildings in Gaza (in which already several entire Palestinian families have been killed) that begun Saturday suggests there will be little restraint on the side of the Israeli army. Feelings of revenge and bloodlust are perhaps natural, but they should be strongly condemned, preferably preemptively, by the international community. For this reason it is concerning that Western governments have offered “unwavering” or “unconditional support” for the Israelis in their response to Hamas. Given the IDF’s history of indiscriminate violence, why would there not be conditions to the West’s support for Israel?

The international community, either bilaterally or through the United Nations, should put up clear red lines for Israel’s response to Hamas. In this, it goes without saying that a ground invasion of Gaza—which is in the cards, according to some analysts—would be an unjustifiable escalation that should not receive Western support; instead, it should result in Western sanctions. But other actions that the Israelis have already taken, including Monday’s blockade of electricity, water, food, and fuel into Gaza (which is inhabited by two million innocent people, of which roughly one million children), would in any other context already have been met with sharp criticism. Thus, it should be clear that the Hamas attacks do not justify Israel committing war crimes, and the West has to be prepared to abandon its biases and criticize and sanction Israel whenever necessary.

Illustration of loss of Palestinian territory. In any other context, there would be little discussion that this shows a history of expansionism or colonialism.

Fourth, the Palestinian people are in the process of a decades-long struggle of decolonization. This is not to say that the Hamas attacks are a noble decolonial effort: indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians does nothing to accomplish the foundation of an independent Palestine. Still, unlike in the rest of the world, there is little understanding in the

West that this wider decolonial struggle does exist. Israel behaves as a colonizer, and its expansion of settlements in recent years only further cements that image. (These maps show just how little of living space for the Palestinian people remains. Gaza is commonly called the “world’s largest open-air prison”.) As they had before the Second World War, the Palestinians have a right to their own territory, governed freely and without Israeli interference. There is no justification for the ways in which they have been suppressed and the ways in which Palestine’s young people have been deprived from a fair and hopeful future. If the Israeli government is unwilling to engage in serious efforts to work out a two-state solution, then the struggle inevitably persists. This struggle, then, is inherently righteous.

It is unfortunate that the current Palestinian government, which should be leading such an anticolonial effort, has a serious legitimacy problem. President Abbas is deeply unpopular, and the government’s political vision and diplomatic outreach are weak. As noted before, Hamas is not very popular, either. Palestine needs stable, visionary political representation, both to re-assess the role of Hamas in Gaza’s defense and politics and reinvigorate a diplomatic relationship with Israel, even under Netanyahu. This is something the international community can actively help with—and would be much more constructive than sanctioning the Palestinian people, who will suffer greatly in the coming weeks and months because of Hamas’ violence.

* Note: On 9 October 2023, the European Union reversed this apparently unilateral decision by a E.U. Commissioner. This occurred after several member states opposed halting financial support for the Palestinian authorities.

Image references