Thoughts on “…but Hamas.”

To exist is to resist
Critical Hydra Theory posits that all oppression stems from toxic othering. At its core, the theory asserts that when Group A perceives itself as inherently superior to Group B (A ≠ B → A > B), the oppressor rationalizes its dominance, structuring society to serve its interests while disregarding or minimizing the rights and perspectives of the oppressed. Dismantling such systems, what I call confronting toxic othering, requires rejecting the justifications for oppression and envisioning a world where no group subjugates another, ensuring universal human dignity.

Historically, anthropologically, and sociologically, oppressed groups inevitably resist. This principle is straightforward: oppression breeds resistance. The form resistance takes depends on context, but its existence is inevitable. In Gaza and the West Bank, for example, Hamas’s resistance to Israeli military and governmental oppression persists. Labeling such groups as “terrorists” is a semantic tactic used by oppressors (here, Israel and the IDF) to delegitimize dissent and justify their actions. Eliminating Hamas would not resolve the root issue; another resistance movement would emerge. Oppressed populations unified by prolonged struggle do not suddenly acquiesce. Lasting peace requires ending the oppression of Palestinians, as resistance ceases only when oppression does.

Sociologically, any large group (such as the Palestinians living in Gaza) exhibits a spectrum of responses to oppression, ranging from reluctant compliance to militant defiance. In the Palestinian context, a segment of the population—whether called Hamas or another name—will always reject subjugation. Oppressors lack the moral authority to unilaterally define resistance as terrorism, yet they often rationalize their actions through religious, historical, or political narratives. Israel’s educational system, for instance, reinforces a one-sided historical perspective and mandates military service (IDF), embedding complicity in oppression and normalizing the status quo.

Only impartial external entities such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and international human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International can objectively assess what is and is not oppression and legitimate responses to it. There is a difference between ‘terrorism’ and ‘freedom fighting’, and that difference must be objectively adjudicated. Oppressors cannot self-absolve by denying their harms, their oppression. Historically, dominant groups have weaponized ideology—including religion—to legitimize oppression. As an atheist and humanist, I view this as a disingenuous and manipulative distortion of “sacred” texts to serve power.

In short, justice demands dismantling the hierarchies that fuel oppression. Without this, resistance—in all its forms—will endure. I personally advocate a Gandhian/ML King non-violent resistance in all cases, but I do understand that the frustration that builds up when prolonged and repeated efforts in peaceful resistance can lead a faction of those resisting to use physical acts of violence.

“…but Hamas”
As illustrated above, discussing the current situation in Gaza and the West Bank with those attempting to justify oppression is profoundly challenging. Jewish and Israeli interlocutors, in particular, often invoke Hamas when addressing the crisis. Through the lens of Critical Hydra Theory, I interpret this rhetoric as a deflection—a “but Hamas” argument that obscures the root cause: oppression breeds resistance. By focusing solely on Hamas, such responses ignore the systemic reality I outlined earlier: subjugation will inevitably provoke defiance, regardless of the resisting group’s name or tactics.

I find this line of reasoning largely indefensible. As a humanist, I reject the “but Hamas” framing unless it explicitly addresses the structural violence of occupation that precedes and perpetuates resistance. While I do not condone violence as a first resort, I recognize its role as a tragic, last-ditch response to extreme oppression. To dismiss this dynamic is to deny the lived reality of Palestinians and the historical pattern of resistance movements emerging under systemic injustice.

The “but Hamas rhetoric” also infers a very narrow scope of historical context. The current conflict did not start on October 7^th, 2023. Make no mistake, what Hamas did on that day is tragic to any humanitarian, that said, it is not out of line with history, with rationality, or even international law (see the revised 1977 Geneva Conventions and UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 (1982). Those who are subjugated by a state have the right to take up arms against that state. Oppressors will generate resistance and resistance can turn violent, especially if there is a perception that all other alternative means have been exhausted. By asserting “but Hamas,” the defender of Israeli oppression is typically just seeing the human tragedy of October 7^th as opposed to understanding the much larger context of the history of resistance against this particular oppression starting even before 1948.

Critical Hydra Theory reminds us that neutralizing one group (e.g., Hamas) cannot eradicate resistance while oppression persists. Lasting peace requires dismantling the hierarchies that fuel desperation—not vilifying those pushed to resist them.

A solution?
From the perspective of the critical Hydra theorist -which is my perspective- the only real solution is a ‘one state solution where everyone’s rights are respected, and the territory can go back to what it was before: Christians, Jews, and Muslims living together in relative harmony. There are serious academic scholars, including many who identify as Jewish who argue exactly this (see Judith Butler’s Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism. I know that we cannot turn back the clock of time, but Our goal should always be that the end product of our efforts is a more just world for everyone. A two-state solution is probably more politically plausible, but it would ultimately allow a structural maintenance of the toxic gathering on both sides. As a humanitarian, I refuse to believe that peace is not possible. As Edward R Morrow said long ago, “Difficulty is an excuse that history rarely accepts.” Whatever path forward, it must be motivated by love and compassion, not fear and hate. Let the principles of universal human dignity, and the right of all humans to remain free of a life of oppression guide the future not only of the this specific troubled region but of all humanity.