The Israel-Hamas-Iran conflict is driven by deep historical, religious, and ideological forces. Collective traumas and existential fears on all sides fuel a cycle of violence, making comprise and peace difficult to achieve. 

In modern discourse, a pervasive sense of historical amnesia surrounds the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its broader regional implications involving Hamas and Iran. Few possess a nuanced understanding of the last 80 years of strife in the Middle East, leading to dangerously oversimplified narratives of good versus evil. Many reduce it to a binary struggle, ignoring the profound historical, political, and ideological roots that have shaped the current landscape. The uncomfortable truth is that both sides have committed horrific acts in pursuit of their goals, and this conflict, when viewed through a more objective lens, defies clear moral absolutes. 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has evolved into a battleground not just of land but of identity, religion, and existential survival. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, wars, intifadas, and cycles of retaliation have created generations of victims on both sides, each perceiving the other as aggressors. This dynamic is further complicated by deep-seated historical traumas and ideologies that shape how both Israelis and Hamas view the conflict and approach their strategic decisions. 

The trauma of the Holocaust remains a central pillar in shaping Israel’s national psyche and strategic thinking. It was not merely an event of immense human suffering but an existential crisis threatening the very survival of the Jewish people. This experience instils in many Israelis the belief that their survival is always precarious, and that security must be guaranteed at all costs. 

Israel’s military and strategic posture is heavily influenced by this deep-seated fear of annihilation. The notion of “never again” permeates decisions regarding defence and security, leading to policies often viewed externally as overly aggressive or uncompromising. From the Israeli perspective, these actions are necessary to prevent a repeat of history, where Jews were targeted for extermination. This mindset fuels an uncompromising stance on existential threats—real or perceived—including groups like Hamas, whose charter rejects Israel’s right to exist. For many Israelis, the idea of relinquishing security measures in the face of continued hostility is tantamount to inviting another catastrophe. 

Conversely, Hamas is driven by historical, religious, and anthropological forces often overlooked in mainstream analysis. Emerging from the broader Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas distinguishes itself with ideological roots in Islamist thought. The movement is founded on a belief in the sacredness of the land of Palestine, viewed as an integral part of the Islamic world (Dar al-Islam). This religious perspective fuels their resistance to Israel’s existence, which they see not only as an occupation of land but as a desecration of what is considered holy ground. Their struggle is framed as both a political fight for Palestinian independence and a religious duty to defend Islamic territory from non-Muslim control. This anthropological foundation of land, faith, and resistance intertwines with historical grievances stemming from displacement and ongoing occupation, generating a sense of collective victimhood among Palestinians. 

For Hamas, the political and military resistance against Israel is not only a means to achieve Palestinian sovereignty but also a way to restore a perceived natural and divine order. The group’s refusal to compromise is rooted in this broader religious and historical worldview, making negotiations and concessions extremely difficult, as they perceive the entire conflict through the lens of divine justice and resistance to perceived injustice. 

At the heart of this conflict lies a fundamental clash of ideologies, interwoven with the dynamics of complex interdependence. For Israel, the core belief is that it must exist as a secure Jewish state, free from existential threats. This belief is underpinned by the trauma of the Holocaust—a deeply ingrained historical scar driving its uncompromising stance on national security—not to mention that, after 2000 years of persecution, random pogroms, and displacement, the Jewish people have finally returned to their ancestral holy land, reinforcing their resolve to protect it at all costs. The memory of near annihilation fuels the conviction that survival is always tenuous, making strategic decisions—whether military or diplomatic—focused on preventing any threat from gaining a foothold. This worldview renders compromise, particularly with actors like Hamas who deny Israel’s right to exist, nearly impossible. 

Hamas, on the other hand, is shaped by a different set of ideological and historical currents. Its foundation is rooted in the Palestinian struggle for independence, but is critically anchored in an anthropological belief that the land of Palestine is sacred Islamic territory. This religious conviction places their resistance within a broader narrative of divine justice, where the fight for liberation is not just political but spiritual. Notably, the Israelis view the land through a similar religious lens, considering it sacred and divinely promised, making their fight to secure it equally spiritual and existential. Hamas sees its role as defending this land against what it considers an illegitimate occupying power, making negotiations that recognise Israel’s sovereignty untenable. 

Iran complicates the picture further by injecting its ideological and geopolitical interests into this complex web of interdependence. Anti-Zionism, framed as opposition to Western influence in the region, motivates Iran’s support for Hamas and other groups. This triangulation among Israel, Hamas, and Iran creates a conflict laden with political, religious, and historical stakes, where each side views its position as not only necessary but morally imperative. 

History offers unsettling parallels, particularly the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. Much like the Israel-Hamas conflict, these wars were driven by irreconcilable geopolitical interests and existential fears. Both sides saw moments where peace seemed possible, but deep-seeded distrust and the pursuit of survival made lasting compromise unattainable. 

The climax of this ancient conflict came in 146 BCE when Rome, unwilling to tolerate even the slightest potential threat from its rival, razed Carthage to the ground, killing or enslaving its population. The lesson from the Punic Wars is that when two sides view each other as existential threats, the “logical” end, from their perspective, may be the elimination of the other. 

While the modern international system—governed by laws, institutions, and norms—makes such wholesale destruction less likely today, the underlying dynamics remain instructive. The Israel-Hamas-Iran conflict exhibits similar intractability, where the ideological divide is so deep that any compromise feels like weakness or betrayal. Each side views the other not merely as a competitor but as an existential adversary that cannot be allowed to survive unchallenged. 

Given the historical, ideological, and emotional weight of the Israel-Hamas-Iran conflict, it is challenging to envision a future where peace is achieved through conventional diplomatic means. The deep-rooted distrust, competing national narratives, and zero-sum nature of the struggle suggest that, without a transformative event, the cycle of violence will persist. History has shown that even the most entrenched conflicts can shift when external forces or internal dynamics change dramatically. However, in the current landscape, such a shift seems remote. 

The challenge for those seeking peace in the Middle East lies in acknowledging the profound complexities of the conflict without succumbing to simplistic narratives of good and evil. There are no easy answers, and the moral terrain is fraught with ambiguity. The path forward requires not just political solutions but a reckoning with the deep ideological divides and complex interdependencies that have fuelled the violence for so long. Without addressing these underlying currents, it is difficult to envision a future where the region moves beyond its tragic and cyclical conflict. 

Joseph Zeller is a Senior Manager at the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and a serving naval officer with extensive experience in defence and national security. He is a graduate of the Australian War College (Australian Command and Staff Course) and holds a Master of Business Administration (ANU), a Master of Policing, Intelligence, and Counter Terrorism (Macquarie University), and a Bachelor of Policing (Charles Sturt University). Joseph Zeller | LinkedIn

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.