Recasting Struggle: Exposing Gender and Colonial Mechanisms in the Israel-Hamas Conflict

The ongoing war between Hamas and Israeli forces has turned into a tragedy. Although the attention is deliberately being drawn to the recent escalation since October 7, 2023, by the mainstream media, its origins may be found in 1948, the year Israel was established. Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes as a result of Israeli operations over the years, especially in Gaza, where Hamas has been subject to strict control and isolation. Israel has a long history of oppression and harassment, which has firmly ingrained this conflict. A post-colonial perspective elucidates the power structures implicated in international security disputes and emphasises the importance of historicisation and contextualisation. Using their capacity for knowledge production to set a narrative draws attention to the imbalance in the global power structure and the legacy of imperialism.

It is critical to acknowledge that Hamas's tactics have violated international law and human rights, regardless of the historical background. Although the post-colonial viewpoint exposes the underlying power tensions in this conflict, it does not support Hamas's conduct. Israel's power and supremacy have been strengthened by its strong support from Western countries and its dominance in the realm of IR. The postcolonial viewpoint strongly emphasises the significance of knowing who has the right to speak and whose voice is taken seriously (Parashar, 2016). This idea is essential to understanding conflicts such as the Israel-Hamas war, in which voices and narratives from both sides are frequently ignored or misinterpreted.  This unequal representation can distort the understanding of the conflict, perpetuate stereotypes, and hinder efforts towards a more balanced and inclusive dialogue. 

A significant factor in this war is also the question of positionality and the blatant meddling in the domestic affairs of non-European governments by Western powers, who control policy and are essential to peace talks. The peace process has been impacted by Western interventions, which are frequently motivated by geopolitical interests. These interventions may not have adequately addressed the underlying causes of the conflict or considered the needs and viewpoints of the local communities directly impacted by the violence. In addition to their inadequate response to the consequences of their actions, their role in rewriting history has significantly harmed marginalised groups of people who lack the means and authority to voice their experiences (Barkawi, 2004). The mainstream media substantiates the point, emphasising Oct 7, 2023, instead of 1948 (Reuters 2024), solely focusing on the state actors, like Israel, the US, Palestine, and the non-state actors like the Hamas group.

While traditional security studies adopt a realist perspective towards war, feminist viewpoints challenge this approach by advocating for a shift towards individual-focused analyses that consider marginalised and disadvantaged groups (Shepherd, 2009). The colonial legacy embedded within Israel's actions positions it as a dominant power, reflecting a patriarchal and violent nature that overlooks the human impact of war beyond high politics. In the Israel-Hamas conflict, gendered narratives and representations influence the portrayal of violence and power dynamics. For instance, the experiences of women and children in conflict zones, such as Gaza, where they are disproportionately affected by the violence, highlight how gender intersects with violence. The differential impact of conflict on men, women, and children underscores the complex interplay between gender, violence, and power dynamics in the conflict (Parashar, 2016). We may critically analyse the effects of the war on a person when we deconstruct a person's identity from the one fabricated by the state actors for their political interests. Because they are frequently perceived as the war's victims, women and children produce a dichotomy of protector/protected that reinforces hegemonic masculinity in combat. The essentialist concept of gendered norms, or the roles that men and women play in society, places women inside the bounds of stereotypes that prevent them from becoming the aggressors in conflict or acts of violence, therefore perpetuating power structures that affect both genders.

Nation-states maintain violence to remain relevant and declare themselves powerful over other states. This perpetuates the ideologies of hegemonic masculinity, the state being the epitome of it. Therefore, the prevailing realism framework that establishes the narrative for the international arena places the state at the centre and maintains that anarchy rules the world. This supports a variety of viewpoints and interpretations. Viewing this conflict through the lens of security relativism (Krause and Williams, 2018) reveals contrasting narratives. For Israel, the war is about safeguarding its citizens and territorial integrity against Hamas's resistance.

Conversely, Hamas justifies its involvement as a stand against decades of humiliation and oppression while advocating for a two-nation solution. As a key player in international security, the US publicly supports Israel and dominates the war economy. The US has openly supported Israel in the past, both militarily and diplomatically, which has improved Israel's position in the conflict. This support has changed the balance of power in the area and impacted the war economy through political alliances and arms sales (U.S. Embassy in Israel 2021). Being a veto player and having undeniable influence in the international realm, support from the US again puts Israel up on the ladder of power hierarchy and further undermines the Palestinian standpoint.

We must go beyond the conventional conception of international security and concentrate on various impacted actors rather than just nation-states. We may broaden the range of analysis and make security studies more inclusive of diverse experiences and viewpoints by expanding and extending the discipline (Krause and Williams, 2018), which may be necessary for future policies. The international influences the personal, but the personal also influences the state's policies, which are mirrored in their foreign policy and impact the international. Understanding differences and incorporating various critical perspectives from the state and non-state actors would be beneficial in constructing a more positive future for everyone. 

Bibliography:

1.     Barkawi, Tarak. 2004. ‘On the Pedagogy of “Small Wars”’. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 80 (1): 19–37.

2.     Shepherd, Laura J. 2009. ‘Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies’. Political Studies Review 7 (2): 208–19.

3.     Parashar, Swati. 2016. ‘Feminism and Postcolonialism: The Twain Shall Meet’. Postcolonial Studies 19 (4): 463–77.

4.     Reuters. 2024. “Israel-Hamas War | Timeline of Major Events From the First 100 Days.” The Hindu. January 23, 2024. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/israel-hamas-war-timeline-of-major-events-from-the-first-100-days/article67740155.ece

5.     Krause, Keith, and Michael Williams. 2018d. “Security and ‘Security Studies.’” The Oxford Book of International Security, March 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198777854.013.2

6.     U.S. Embassy in Israel. 2021. “Policy &Amp; History - U.S. Embassy in Israel.” February 10, 2021. https://il.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/#:~:text=Diplomatic%20Relations%20were%20established%20when,partner%20in%20the%20Middle%20East