The ambiguous relationship between Israel and Hamas

For many years, there has been extensive debate about the nature of the indirect relationship between Hamas and Israel, a relationship that appears on the surface to be a bloody confrontation without respite, but in depth carries complexities that make it more akin to a tangle of conflicting interests than an absolute conflict. Israel, for its part, has benefited from the presence of Hamas in Gaza as it serves as the ideal adversary that justifies the continuation of the blockade and military operations, while also covering its political project to undermine the idea of a unified Palestinian state. The mere existence of an antagonistic entity in Gaza allows it to present to the world a constant narrative of a threat to its security, and provides an opportunity to weaken the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and block any political path that might lead to a two-state solution.

In this specific context, Hamas constitutes a valuable asset for the Israeli right, which rejects political settlement and bets on entrenching control over Palestinian land. Hamas, with its rhetoric rejecting recognition of Israel and its rockets that are launched from Gaza from time to time, presents the right as victorious in the ongoing battle for "Israel's security." This reality serves right-wing parties within Israel, as it unifies public opinion behind them and weakens the arguments of their opponents from centrist or leftist currents that advocate for negotiations and settlements. Thus, the existence of Hamas, even if hostile, becomes an ideal excuse that the right raises against the international community, asserting that there is no Palestinian partner capable of making peace.

As for Hamas, it has built its discourse and legitimacy on the idea of continuous resistance against occupation, realizing that the ongoing confrontation with Israel is what allows it to remain at the forefront of the Palestinian scene. In the absence of a unifying national project or practical ability to end the occupation, the continuous confrontation has turned into a political asset for the movement, as it presents itself as the entity that has not conceded or entered into peace agreements that compromise historical rights. In this sense, despite the declared animosity between Israel and Hamas, each has indirectly reinforced the position of the other; Israel has found in Hamas a justification for perpetuating the reality of Palestinian division and the rise of the right internally, while Hamas has found in Israel a permanent enemy that justifies its existence and its political and military choices.

This ambiguous relationship explains how every round of war between the two parties ends with a return to square one, without a definitive resolution and without a fundamental change in reality. In fact, each side emerges from the war more committed to its options and more capable of justifying them to its audience. Thus, Hamas, whether intentionally or unintentionally, becomes a pawn in the hands of Israel and a renewed ammunition for the right within it, while Israel, in turn, becomes the enemy that grants Hamas legitimacy and continuity. Ultimately, it is the Palestinian people who pay the highest price, caught between an occupying power imposing its policies by force and a resistance movement justifying the continuation of division under the pretext of open conflict.

However, this equation has not remained confined within the borders of Palestine and Israel; it has reflected on the entire region. Some Arab parties have found in the persistence of Palestinian division a justification for marginalizing the issue or normalizing relations with Israel on the grounds that the Palestinians are unable to unite their ranks. Conversely, other regional powers such as Iran, Turkey, and Qatar invest in supporting Hamas to enhance their regional influence and present themselves as protectors of the Palestinian cause. On the international level, major powers have often exploited the existence of Hamas to justify their bias towards Israel under the banner of "fighting terrorism," which has allowed Israel to expand its influence and diplomatic relations in the West. Thus, the scene becomes more complicated, as the ambiguous relationship between Israel and Hamas is not limited to two conflicting parties, but transforms into a regional and international card used to redraw the balance of power in the Middle East.

To break the vicious cycle between Israel and Hamas and to mitigate its effects on the Palestinians, the focus must first be on internal Palestinian unity, as ending the division between Gaza and the West Bank is the cornerstone of any successful political path. The existence of a unified Palestinian leadership capable of negotiating with a unified voice reduces the chances of the division being exploited by Israel or any regional party to achieve its own interests, and this requires serious national dialogue and consensus on a unified political program and reform of Palestinian institutions to ensure transparency and accountability. At the same time, the international community must be more just in dealing with the parties to the conflict, so that the existence of Hamas is not used as an excuse to justify Israeli settlement or military policies. Supporting tangible international pressure mechanisms on Israel to stop settlement expansion and lift the blockade, while providing concrete incentives for Palestinians to enhance stability and development, can help