From the rubble of Gaza to the chambers of power in Tel Aviv and Washington, the conflict between Hamas and Israel is presented to the public as a relentless, zero-sum battle between ideologies, religions, and civilizations. But behind the bombastic rhetoric and bloodshed lies a deeper reality — one where enemies are cultivated, maintained, and occasionally even welcomed, for they serve a function beyond combat: they justify power.
This essay explores how Hamas, far from being merely Israel’s existential foe, functions as a strategic asset for Israel’s political establishment. It analyzes the historical origins of Hamas, the West’s role in shaping the conflict, and how media and public perception have crystallized a narrative that obscures deeper geopolitical motives.
📜 The Birth of Hamas: Resistance or Setup?
Hamas emerged in 1987 during the First Intifada, presenting itself as a religious alternative to the secular Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Rooted in the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas fused Islamism with armed resistance against Israeli occupation.
Ironically, it was Israel itself that tacitly encouraged the rise of Hamas in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Hoping to fragment Palestinian political identity and weaken the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat, Israeli policymakers allowed Hamas-linked charities and educational institutions to operate with relative freedom in Gaza.
Advertisement
Their calculations? A religious opposition would dilute the effectiveness of a united Palestinian front demanding sovereignty. Short-term strategic division — long-term unintended consequences.
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would later state:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state must support the bolstering of Hamas and transferring money to Hamas.”
Whether rhetorical or literal, this sentiment reflects a truth at the heart of Israeli politics: Hamas is an ideal enemy.
🔄 Symbiosis in Conflict: Mutual Dependence
It may seem grotesque, but Hamas and Israel exhibit a sort of strategic mutualism:
- Hamas gains legitimacy through its resistance posture. Israeli airstrikes and blockades become proof of the need for militant defiance. Chaos garners international humanitarian aid, which ironically helps Hamas remain entrenched.
- Israel, in turn, uses Hamas as a justification:
- For military campaigns.
- For expanding settlements.
- For rejecting negotiations with moderate Palestinian factions.
- For galvanizing public support during elections.
This enemy-as-asset paradigm reframes the conflict: not as a battle to eliminate terrorism, but as a model of managed instability. A permanent crisis that sustains the status quo.
🌐 Western Involvement: The Engine Behind Ideology
The West’s role in shaping the Hamas-Israel dynamic is indispensable.
- During the Cold War, Islamist groups were often favored as bulwarks against communism. In Afghanistan, jihadist fighters received support from the U.S. to oppose Soviet occupation.
- In Syria, Western-aligned countries supported Sunni rebel groups — some with links to Islamist ideology — to dislodge Bashar al-Assad, a pan-Arabist aligned with Russia and Iran.
- Pan-Arabists like Nasser, Saddam Hussein, and Assad were secular nationalists who resisted Western hegemony and normalization with Israel. Their downfall often coincided with the rise of Islamist forces — welcomed as either useful tools or manageable threats.
Thus, we see a strange pattern emerge:
| Ideological Force | Historic Allies | Modern Backers |
|---|---|---|
| Islamism | The West (vs. USSR) | Often the West (vs. Iran, Assad) |
| Pan-Arabism | Nazi Germany, Soviet Union | Russia |
| Israel | U.S., Western Europe | Conservative Gulf States, U.S. |
These alliances suggest that ideological purity is subordinate to strategic utility. Hamas is not the enemy because of religious beliefs — it’s the enemy because its existence serves specific ends. Likewise, Israel isn’t always opposed to Islamism; it is opposed to independent pan-Arabism, particularly when it resists normalization or territorial compromise.
📺 Media as Amplifier and Architect
Media coverage — especially in Western outlets — has played a crucial role in solidifying public opinion:
- “Moderate Muslims” vs. “Radical Extremists” became a binary framework after 9/11, ignoring the diversity and complexity of Islamic traditions.
- Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization, while Israeli military actions are framed as self-defense, regardless of civilian casualties.
- Visual symbols such as the face veil (niqab) dominate coverage of Islamic movements, even though only a tiny fraction of Muslim women wear it. This feeds visual conditioning, where Islam equals extremism.
- The social media era, beginning in the mid-2000s, accelerated the spread of simplified narratives, often without verification or nuance. Viral clips replaced diplomatic context, and memes outpaced policy discussions.
Public understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict narrowed to flashes of violence, stripping away decades of colonial history, forced displacement, and economic blockade.
⚔️ The “War on ISIS” and The Broader Strategy
The war on ISIS is often portrayed as a purely antiterrorist operation. But its battlefield — Syria and Iraq — coincided with Israel’s strategic goals of weakening Assad, isolating Iran, and dividing the Arab world.
Under the guise of counterterrorism:
- Syria’s infrastructure was decimated.
- Hezbollah’s supply lines were stretched thin.
- Assad was demonized, despite his role in resisting Israeli expansion.
In this context, Hamas shares features with other Islamist groups that Israel and the West simultaneously battle and leverage. They are enemies, yes — but also gateways to other strategic targets.
🏗️ The Function of Controlled Chaos
One of the most striking patterns in African nations — like Burkina Faso, Mali, and Nigeria — is how jihadist attacks intensify when governments challenge Western influence, especially France’s.
Alternative media in Nigeria have even suggested that foreign entities benefit from Boko Haram’s instability, as it discourages local autonomy and secures access to natural resources. While direct evidence of Western funding is scarce, the overlap between conflict zones and resource-rich areas controlled by multinationals cannot be ignored.
Likewise, Gaza’s perpetual crisis may serve the function of:
- Preventing political unity among Palestinians.
- Justifying regional militarization.
- Blocking international pressure for a two-state solution.
Hamas, in this light, becomes not a threat — but a tool. A masked reason for action.
📣 Rethinking the Narrative: Who is the Real Enemy?
To suggest that Hamas is not Israel’s true enemy but its excuse is provocative, yet well-rooted in historical precedent. Across time, leaders have conjured or cultivated enemies to legitimize power grabs, restrict civil liberties, and distract from domestic failings.
In this case, Hamas provides:
- An argument against Palestinian statehood.
- A pretext for military expansion.
- A villain in Israel’s security drama.
And as long as Hamas remains active — and violent — calls for peace, statehood, and regional reconciliation remain buried.
🧠 Conclusion: When War Becomes Policy
The Hamas-Israel conflict may be religious in aesthetics, but it is geopolitical at its core. Hamas, birthed amid resistance, now lives on as a political instrument. And while its actions cause death and destruction, they also sustain narratives that empower its enemies.
True peace — if it were ever truly desired — would require:
- Deconstructing these functional myths.
- Demystifying the convenient enemy.
- Rethinking alliances based on ethical responsibility instead of strategic convenience.
Until then, Hamas and Israel remain locked in a choreography of calculated antagonism, one that favors power over people, and theater over truth.
Dutch Echo 
Leave a comment