As the conflict in Gaza enters its fourth year, calls for Hamas to relinquish control and evacuate are growing stronger. Many argue that dismantling the group’s political and military branches is essential for Gaza’s future.
Understanding Gaza’s current situation requires a look at the historical context of the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is not solely linked to Hamas. The group didn’t exist in 1948, when numerous Palestinian villages, including Naj and Huj, were destroyed during the Nakba, the catastrophe accompanying Israel’s establishment, leading to the creation of towns like Sderot.
Hamas was also not present during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, which marked the start of Israel’s military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem. This occupation deeply affected Palestinian society and, combined with a waning secular nationalist movement and the rise of religious influences, paved the way for Hamas’s emergence during the First Intifada in 1987.
Hamas was founded by several Palestinians, including Ibrahim al-Yazouri and Abdulaziz al-Rantisi, whose families were displaced by Israeli actions. Another prominent founder, Ahmed Yassin, fled from his village as a child. While recognising this history is not to excuse Hamas’s actions, it’s important to place them within the broader context of Israeli policies.
Unlike groups like ISIS, Palestinian factions have strong ties to local communities and national identity. Although Hamas has made poor decisions, including its recent attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, it remains a manifestation of decades of suffering and a struggle for self-determination.
Any resolution to the Gaza conflict that overlooks these historical realities is likely to fail. Framing the Palestinian right to self-determination as a concession to Hamas misunderstands the situation and normalises systemic biases. This right is recognised in international law and has support from many countries independent of Hamas’s actions.
It’s incorrect to equate Hamas with the Palestinian population’s views. Nearly half of Gaza’s inhabitants are under 18, and many were not born when Hamas was elected in 2006. A recent survey revealed that only 29 per cent of Gazans trust the current government, with many citing internal issues as the cause of poverty. A majority support a two-state solution and peaceful resolution over military action.
The presence of Hamas does not justify the extensive destruction in Gaza or the reported atrocities against civilians, which have led to accusations of war crimes against Israeli officials. Such acts occurred irrespective of Hamas’s involvement.
Ironically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has leveraged the group’s presence to claim there are no moderate Palestinian partners for negotiations. This reflects a broader strategy linked to the 2017 Subjugation Plan, which advocated ignoring Palestinian aspirations.
Today’s diplomatic environment is marked by imbalances. Palestinian groups face strict conditions for legitimacy, while Israeli authorities face none. Historically, groups that used violence in Israel have transitioned to mainstream politics without facing similar demands.
The ongoing negotiations for ceasefire remain stalled due to Israel’s insistence on Hamas’s disarmament as a precondition for peace, effectively closing the door on potential agreements. This situation allows Israel to maintain a status quo that benefits its strategic interests.
Ultimately, eliminating Hamas will not address the Palestinian yearning for freedom or ensure security for Israel and Palestine. The roots of the conflict extend far beyond the emergence of any militant group. As a historical warning noted, “a nation that oppresses another ultimately forges its own chains.”
