by Alon Ben-Meir*
It is time to step back from the constant flow of current events to recognize the overriding dilemma: Hamas’s savage October 7 attack on Israel and the latter’s massive retaliatory war are rooted in four dimensions of psychological impediments—historical, ideological, religious and humanitarian.
Both sides were driven by these decades-long psychological dimensions, which have only worsened over the years, making a solution to their conflict almost impossible.
Although the unfolding horror of these tragic events offered an opportunity for a breakthrough, they remain captive to these four impediments and refuse to talk about a long-term solution.
Still, both sides know that the conflict will never be resolved through wars and endless violence, and only by mitigating these impediments through a process of reconciliation will an enduring solution be found.
Hamas’ historical perspective
From the Palestinian viewpoint, the October 7 attack was seen as a response to the decades-long Israeli occupation, the refugees’ tragedy, oppression, displacement, economic strangulation of Gaza through the blockade, home demolitions, building and expansion of Israeli settlements and denial of Palestinian rights.
Indeed, a Palestinian Center for Policy Survey and Research poll in December 2023 found that nearly three in four Palestinians believed Hamas’ decision to attack was correct.
The history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and fading hopes for a political solution justified the attack as resistance against what they view as Israeli crimes. Hamas’ objective is to end the occupation and the blockade of Gaza, free Palestinian prisoners and restore historic Palestine to its rightful owners.
Israel’s historical perspective
From the Israeli perspective, the October 7 attack was an unprovoked act of terrorism against civilians, and its retaliation is justified as Israel has the right to exist and defend itself, recalling Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel and its commitment to its destruction.
Moreover, the decades-long history of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians further cemented Israel’s historical view that the Palestinians, especially Hamas, are irredeemable and that they pose an existential threat and must be destroyed.
The attack and subsequent war are the latest manifestations of a conflict fueled by incompatible national aspirations and historical traumas on both sides. They go back to Israel’s War of Independence in 1948 and the catastrophe (al Nakba) that the Palestinians endured, which remains embedded in their collective psyche.
Hamas’ ideology
Hamas’ founding charter and ideology call for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in all of historic Palestine, even though its amended 2017 charter accepts a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
This core ideological tenet directly led to planning and executing the October 7 attack. Hamas views violent resistance against Israel as a legitimate and necessary means to achieve its goals, stating, “Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right… At the heart of these lies armed resistance…”
Hamas’ ideology glorifies martyrdom and sacrifice in the fight against Israel. Hamas prioritized its ideological aims over the pragmatic governance of Gaza, choosing to launch the attack despite knowing it would lead to massive retaliation.
Israel’s Zionist ideology
Israel’s Zionist ideology emphasizes the need for a secure Jewish homeland, leading to a forceful military response to perceived existential threats.
Zionist ideology asserts Jewish historical and religious rights to the land, influencing Israel’s approach to territorial control and settlements. The October 7 attack evoked deep-seated ideological fears about Jewish survival, prompting Israel’s unprecedented retaliation.
Besides, the current Israeli government’s far-right ideological leanings have adopted an extremely aggressive stance toward Palestinians and determined that the current conflagration offered a historic opportunity to realize its ideological principal tenet of usurping most if not all of what they consider Israel’s biblical land.
Both ideologies have created a cycle of violence and deep mistrust, with each side’s actions reinforcing the other’s ideological narratives. The intensity and scale of Hamas’ attack and Israel’s response can be attributed mainly to these deeply held ideological positions on both sides.
Hamas’ religious motivations
Hamas is an Islamist organization that views its struggle against Israel through a religious lens. Its ideology combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism.
Its charter affirms its belief that “the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day… Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.”
Hamas uses religious rhetoric to justify violence against Israel, framing it as “resistance” against occupation and oppression. Hamas glorifies martyrdom and sacrifice in the fight against Israel, which, to a great extent, motivated many of the attackers on October 7, whose religious beliefs justify violence and shape its long-term goals.
Israel’s religious influences
For Israel, religious and historical claims to the land influence its approach to security and territorial control. Israel’s response is influenced by Zionist religious ideology, which emphasizes the need for a secure Jewish homeland and asserts Jewish historical and religious rights to the land.
Verses such as Genesis 17:8 (NKJV), “I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God,” are used to assert such religious claims.
Some Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, have used biblical references to frame the conflict, likening Palestinians to ancient enemies of the Israelites.
The attack occurring on a Jewish holiday (Simchat Torah) heightened the sense of vulnerability and outrage among Israelis, potentially intensifying the response. The timing drew comparisons to the Yom Kippur War of 1973, which began 50 years earlier on October 6 during another significant Jewish holiday and was seen as particularly heinous and symbolic.
The religious beliefs of both Hamas and Israel played significant roles in shaping the October 7 attack and Israel’s subsequent military response, albeit in different ways.
Both sides have a strong affinity to what they consider their holy land and, especially Jerusalem, the home of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif — the Jews’ holiest and the Muslims’ third-holiest shrines. From their perspective, the religious dimension adds a zeal that transcends territorial disputes, making compromise extremely difficult.
Hamas’ delegitimization and dehumanization of Israelis
Hamas’ ideology fundamentally rejects Israel’s right to exist and calls for its destruction. This stance delegitimizes Israel as a state and dehumanizes the Israelis by equating them to vicious invaders and “infidels,” as was stated in their original charter.
Such rhetoric makes it easier to justify violence against civilians. The extreme violence and targeting of civilians during Hamas’ attack, including the killing of children and elderly, rape and kidnapping, demonstrated a profound dehumanization of Israeli civilians, reflected in the attackers’ instructions to kill as many people and take as many hostages as possible.
Israel’s delegitimization and dehumanization of the Palestinians
Israel’s massive military response, resulting in thousands of Palestinian civilian deaths and widespread destruction in Gaza, indicates a willingness to inflict extensive collateral damage in pursuit of Hamas.
This approach suggests a high degree of dehumanization of Palestinian civilians. Many Israelis view Hamas purely as a terrorist organization with no legitimate claims or grievances, while many far-right ordinary Israelis and some officials have called Hamas members “human animals.”
The long-standing conflict has created deep-seated traumas on both sides, making it easier to view the other as an enemy rather than as fellow humans. The mutual delegitimization and dehumanization of the other have been used to justify actions that would otherwise be considered unacceptable and created an environment where extreme violence could be rationalized and executed.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, both sides must accept that despite these psychological impediments, neither side will be able to uproot the other, not now and not ever. Both sides must come to their senses and begin a reconciliation process to mitigate these impediments and move toward peaceful coexistence.
Otherwise, the current horrific conflagration will be just another tragic chapter in the annals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only to be repeated with unfathomable death and destruction. The question again will be not if — but when.
*Middle East Director of the World Policy Institute, New School for Social Research
**first published in: Theglobalist.com
By: N. Peter Kramer
