Israel and Hamas: Converging Imperatives in a Protracted Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, epitomized by the long-standing antagonism between Israel and Hamas, has traditionally been conceptualized as an irreconcilable struggle driven by divergent national, religious, and ideological imperatives. However, a more nuanced analysis reveals that Israel and Hamas share fundamental strategic, political, and sociological commonalities that underpin their respective policies and actions. As the conflict continues into 2025, examining these shared characteristics through a critical lens may provide insights into the mechanisms sustaining the impasse while also illuminating pathways toward resolution. The Primacy of Existential Security At the core of both actors' strategic calculus lies an unwavering commitment to survival. Israel, a state born out of historical trauma and persistent regional hostility, has institutionalized a doctrine of military pre-eminence, deterrence, and intelligence superiority to ensure its continued existence. Hamas, an Islamist-nationalist entity operating under severe geopolitical constraints, similarly prioritizes its organizational survival through asymmetric warfare, political maneuvering, and the cultivation of ideological legitimacy. Despite asymmetries in their military capabilities, both actors are engaged in a perpetual cycle of self-preservation, reinforcing the intractability of the conflict. Israel’s security architecture—embodied in its Iron Dome missile defense system, sophisticated counterterrorism measures, and strategic alliances—reflects an entrenched securitization paradigm. Hamas, though lacking comparable technological and material resources, has adeptly leveraged irregular warfare tactics, including tunnel networks, rocket offensives, and urban insurgency, to sustain its operational viability. This parallel drive for security underscores a fundamental convergence: both actors perceive the conflict as existential, thereby legitimizing strategies that perpetuate militarisation and cyclical violence. Narratives of Historical Legitimacy and Identity Politics The conflict is deeply entrenched in competing historical narratives, each reinforcing a sense of identity that is inextricable from territorial claims and political sovereignty. Israel’s self-conception as the homeland of the Jewish people is grounded in millennia of historical and religious connection to the land, coupled with the existential imperative arising from the Holocaust and subsequent regional conflicts. Hamas, conversely, asserts an Islamic-nationalist vision wherein Palestine is an indivisible entity, rejecting any recognition of Israeli sovereignty. This mutual reliance on historical justification reveals a crucial intersection: both parties construct identity-based legitimacy as an indispensable element of their political existence. This entrenchment in historical narratives manifests in policy frameworks, education systems, and public discourse. Israeli political discourse frequently invokes biblical and historical precedents to substantiate territorial claims, while Hamas integrates Islamic theology and resistance ideology into its sociopolitical messaging. The resultant ideological rigidity limits the feasibility of compromise, as concessions are often framed as existential betrayals rather than pragmatic negotiations. The Weaponisation of Information and Propaganda Both Israel and Hamas have developed sophisticated mechanisms of information warfare, leveraging media channels, social networks, and diplomatic rhetoric to shape international and domestic perceptions. Israel projects itself as a bastion of democracy and self-defense within a hostile region, strategically disseminating narratives that highlight its technological advancements, humanitarian efforts, and military restraint. Hamas, on the other hand, positions itself as the vanguard of Palestinian resistance, portraying Israeli policies as colonialist aggression while emphasizing civilian suffering to garner international solidarity. Digital media has intensified this dynamic, as both actors utilize real-time information dissemination to control public sentiment. Israel employs high-tech cyber capabilities, state-sponsored advocacy, and international lobbying to solidify its strategic alliances. Hamas, constrained by limited formal diplomatic recognition, utilizes grassroots mobilization, social media campaigns, and aligned regional media outlets to frame its struggle in terms of anti-imperialism and self-determination. This mutual engagement in narrative warfare reinforces ideological entrenchment, as both actors prioritize perception management alongside conventional military strategy. Dependency on External Alliances and Geopolitical Leverage The endurance of the Israel-Hamas conflict is not solely dictated, but internal dynamics, and is deeply reliant on external actors for military, economic, and political sustenance for both of them. Israel's strategic alignment with the United States, the European Union, and emerging regional partners under the Abraham Accords has provided it with advanced military technology, economic investment, and diplomatic shielding in international forums. Hamas, despite being designated as a terrorist organization by several Western nations, secures material and financial support from Iran, Qatar, and various transnational Islamist networks. This reliance on external sponsorship further entrenches hostilities. U.S. military aid and diplomatic backing fortify Israel’s deterrence capabilities, while Iranian logistical and financial support enhances Hamas’s asymmetric operational strength. The result is a conflict sustained not only by internal ideological imperatives but also by broader geopolitical rivalries, wherein external actors utilize Israel and Hamas as proxies for regional power struggles. This reality underscores a crucial commonality: neither entity operates in isolation, and both are enmeshed in a larger framework of international strategic calculations. Civilian Populations as Collateral Victims Beyond the political and military dimensions of the conflict, civilians on both sides endure profound humanitarian consequences. Israeli and Palestinian populations experience recurrent cycles of violence, economic instability, and psychological trauma, rendering long-term peace increasingly elusive. Israeli citizens, particularly in border communities, live under the persistent threat of rocket attacks and insurgent incursions, necessitating extensive security measures that impact daily life. Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, face infrastructural collapse, economic deprivation, and movement restrictions that exacerbate humanitarian distress. Both Israel and Hamas justify their military actions within the framework of national defense and resistance, respectively, yet the collateral impact on civilian populations remains a shared and devastating consequence. Reports from human rights organizations consistently highlight violations perpetrated by both sides, including disproportionate use of force, indiscriminate targeting, and the instrumentalization of civilian suffering for political leverage. This reality presents a paradox: while both actors claim to represent and protect their constituencies, their policies frequently engender widespread civilian hardship, thereby perpetuating animosity and radicalization. The Imperative for Political Resolution Despite entrenched hostilities, both Israel and Hamas ultimately share a vested interest in stability. Prolonged conflict yields diminishing returns: economic stagnation, international scrutiny, and cyclical destruction undermine long-term strategic objectives for both parties. While previous diplomatic efforts have faltered, historical precedents suggest that even protracted conflicts can yield to pragmatic resolution when mutual incentives align. Potential avenues for conflict mitigation include conditional ceasefires, confidence-building measures, and regionally mediated negotiations. Security guarantees, economic reconstruction initiatives, and third-party diplomatic engagement could also offer pathways toward de-escalation. However, success depends on the willingness of both entities to recalibrate their strategic calculations and acknowledge that perpetual warfare is unsustainable. The recognition that prolonged hostilities serve neither party’s long-term interests may paradoxically constitute common ground upon which future negotiations can be built.

Conclusion The Israel-Hamas conflict is often viewed as a binary conflict of irreconcilable opposition, yet a critical examination reveals profound structural, strategic, and ideological similarities. From existential security imperatives to reliance on historical narratives, propaganda warfare, and external alliances, both actors exhibit patterns that sustain the conflict’s perpetuity. Understanding these shared dimensions does not imply moral equivalency but rather underscores the necessity of analytical depth in conflict resolution discourse. As global diplomatic efforts continue to evolve, recognizing these convergences may facilitate more effective policy frameworks that address the root causes of the impasse. Whether through incremental confidence-building measures or broader geopolitical realignments, identifying common ground—however counterintuitive—may serve as a crucial step in dismantling the cycles of violence that have defined this enduring conflict. This question remains whether both actors can acknowledge these intersections as opportunities rather than constraints, paving the way for a paradigm shift toward sustainable peace.