Application of 5 IR Theories to Israel-Hamas Conflict’s 5 Dimensions

Introduction

The Israel-Hamas conflict, a persistent and deeply rooted struggle, continues to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. The conflict’s origins can be traced back to the early 20th century, with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 marking a significant turning point. Since then, intermittent wars, uprisings, and peace processes have punctuated the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas, an Islamist militant group, emerged in the late 1980s during the First Intifada, positioning itself as a key player in the Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation.

Accordingly, the current war between the Israel Défense Forces (IDF) and Hamas which started on 7th October 2023 is the escalation of the decades-old conflict with deep historical roots and numerous implications. It is not merely a clash between two war machines but a complex confrontation involving two states: the state of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The conflict has also significant regional implications, influencing and being influenced by the broader Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. Moreover, its impact extends into global politics, drawing in international actors and affecting global diplomatic relations. Lastly, this multifaceted struggle is further complicated by the historical rivalry between two religious ideologies, Islam and Judeo-Christianity.

This article aims to analyse the latest Israel-Hamas conflict through the lens of five main theories of International Relations (IR): Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, Marxism, and Feminism. By applying these theories, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the conflict’s multifaceted nature by first explaining these theories and their main features.

Then, we will apply each theory to the five dimensions of the conflict namely 1. a bilateral confrontation between two war machines, Hamas and the IDF, 2. a state-level conflict between Israel and the Palestinian territories, 3. a regional geopolitical issue, 4. a microcosm of global politics, and 5. the ideological rivalry between Muslims and non-Muslims as an underlying factor.

International Relations (IR) Theories; an Overview

Before applying various IR theories to the ongoing conflict, crisis, and war in the Middle East, let me explain the basic postulates of these theories.

1. Realism, with its emphasis on power and security, provides insight into the strategic calculations and military confrontations that characterize the conflict.
2. Liberalism highlights the role of international institutions, cooperation, and the prospects for peace through diplomatic efforts.
3. Constructivism offers a lens to understand the significance of identity, beliefs, and social constructs in shaping the behaviours and policies of the actors involved.
4. Marxism critiques the underlying economic and class structures that perpetuate the conflict.
5. Feminism brings attention to the gendered dimensions and the impact on women and marginalized groups.

Application of IR Theories to the Israel-Hamas Conflict

A. Realism

Proponents of the realist theory of IR focus on state-centric analysis which emphasizes the role of power and national interest as the driving force of a state’s actions. It assumes the international system as anarchic with no overarching authority and thus views international politics as a struggle for power among self-interested stakeholders. Accordingly, realist theory has the following view on the five dimensions of this conflict

1. IDF vs Hamas: To the realists, the conflict between the Israeli military machine and Hamas is a power struggle between two war machines, each seeking to maximize its power and influence within their respective states.
2. State of Israel vs. Rump State of Palestine: As a conflict between two states, Israel’s strategies can be viewed as efforts to maintain its dominance and secure its borders against perceived threats from the Palestinian territories. On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas vie for power within the Palestinian community, eliminating the state of Israel created through fraud on the land belonging to Palestinians, leading to internal and external conflicts.
3. Regional Geopolitics: The conflict involves regional powers such as Iran, which supports Hamas as a means to counter Israeli influence. Arab states’ normalization of relations with Israel (e.g., the Abraham Accords) reflects a realist pursuit of mutual interests against common threats like Iran.
4. Global Politics: The U.S. supports Israel as a strategic ally in the Middle East, reflecting power-balancing against adversaries in the region. International interventions and peace proposals are often shaped by the power dynamics of major global players.
5. Ideological Conflict: Realism focuses less on ideology and more on how state actors use ideological rhetoric to rally domestic support and justify actions.

B. Liberalism

Advocates of the liberal theory of IR stress the role of international institutions and interdependence and believe in the importance of economic ties, democracy, and international law. They also advocate cooperation and collective security, believing that international organizations and non-state actors can mitigate anarchy. As such, liberalists offer the following explanation of this conflict

1. IDF vs Hamas: Advocates of the liberalist theory of IR emphasise the potential for dialogue and negotiations to resolve the Israel-Hamas conflict. Supports the role of international organizations like the UN in mediating peace talks.
2. State of Israel vs. Rump State of Palestine: Liberalism advocates for the two-state solution, promoting coexistence through democratic governance and economic cooperation. It highlights the importance of human rights and legal frameworks in addressing grievances.
3. Regional Geopolitics: Encourages regional cooperation and economic integration as means to reduce tensions. Supports the role of regional organizations such as the Arab League in facilitating dialogue.
4. Global Politics: Stresses the role of global institutions like the UN and international NGOs in conflict resolution and humanitarian aid. Promotes international law and treaties as tools for achieving lasting peace.
5. Ideological Conflict: Liberalism seeks to bridge ideological divides through mutual understanding and cooperation, advocating for intercultural dialogue and respect.

C. Constructivism

Adherents of the constructivist IR theory eulogise the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping international relations and firmly believe that state interests and identities are constructed through social interaction. Accordingly, they focus on the influence of culture, ideology, and historical context rather than the use of force in every situation.

1. IDF vs Hamas: Construtivists prefer to analyse how the identities and narratives of both Israelis and Palestinians shape their actions and perceptions. They consider the role of historical grievances, religious beliefs, and cultural identities in perpetuating the conflict.
2. State of Israel vs. Rump State of Palestine: Examines how the state identities of Israel and Palestine are constructed through social interactions and historical experiences. Focuses on the symbolic and ideological aspects of the conflict.
3. Regional Geopolitics: Looks at how regional actors construct their identities in relation to the conflict, influencing their foreign policies. Explores the impact of regional narratives and media in shaping public opinion and state behaviour.
4. Global Politics: Investigates how global discourses on terrorism, human rights, and security influence international responses to the conflict. Considers the role of global media and transnational advocacy networks in shaping perceptions and policies.
5. Ideological Conflict: Analyses the role of religious and ideological narratives in shaping the identities and motivations of the conflicting parties. Explores how these narratives are used to mobilize support and justify actions.

D. Marxism

The followers of Marxist theory analyse the international system through the lens of economic structures and class relations. Highlighting the role of capitalism and imperialism in shaping global politics, they view international conflicts as a result of economic inequalities and exploitation.

1. IDF vs Hamas: Marxists would view the Israel-Hamas conflict as a manifestation of deeper economic and class struggles in which the dominant capitalist class at regional and global levels are fuelling this conflict to gain maximum advantage. They maintain that i8t is the economic inequalities and exploitation by these capitalist entities which contribute to the persistence of the conflict.
2. State of Israel vs. Rump State of Palestine: Highlighting the role of economic deprivation and lack of resources in the Palestinian territories as a factor in the conflict, Marxists consider how capitalist interests and economic policies influence the actions of both Israel and Palestine.
3. Regional Geopolitics: Marxists believe that regional economic interests and capitalist dynamics shape the positions of Middle Eastern states and thus consider the influence of global capitalism and imperialism on regional conflicts.
4. Global Politics: Similarly, they hold the inequitable global economic structures and multinational corporations as the driving forces in perpetuating inequalities and conflicts anywhere in the world. Accordingly, they blame Western powers for this conflict to pursue their particularly their economic interests in the Middle East.
5. Ideological Conflict: Marxism does not believe the conflict to be a religious one and views ideological conflicts as rooted in material conditions and class struggles. As such, to them, it is the economic exploitation and inequality that drive this conflict rather than any religious motives. To them, it is just a coincidence that the underclass in this conflict namely Palestinians are Muslims and the oppressors are Jews added by the Christian West.

E. Feminism

Feminist theory in International Relations (IR) emphasizes the importance of gender in understanding global politics, arguing that traditional IR theories have historically marginalized or ignored the experiences and contributions of women. Advocating for the inclusion of women’s voices and perspectives, it examines how gendered structures and norms influence international relations, conflict dynamics, and peace processes, promoting a more inclusive and equitable approach to understanding and resolving global issues. Their views about the ongoing conflict between IDF and Hamas are as follows

1. IDF vs Hamas: Feminists highlight the impact of the conflict on women and marginalized groups in both Israel and Palestine. Analyzes how gendered power structures influence the dynamics of the conflict and peace processes.
2. State of Israel vs. Rump State of Palestine: Examines the role of women in both Israeli and Palestinian societies and their contributions to peacebuilding. Focuses on the gendered aspects of occupation, resistance, and state policies.
3. Regional Geopolitics: Investigates how regional gender norms and patriarchal structures affect the conflict and responses to it. Advocates for the inclusion of women in regional peace initiatives and decision-making processes.
4. Global Politics: Emphasizes the importance of international feminist movements and organizations in addressing the gendered impacts of the conflict. Promotes the inclusion of gender perspectives in global peace and security agendas.
5. Ideological Conflict: Analyzes how gendered ideologies and norms intersect with religious and cultural narratives in the conflict. Advocates for gender equality and the dismantling of patriarchal structures as part of the broader peace process.

Conclusion

Each IR theory offers unique insights into the Israel-Hamas conflict, highlighting different aspects and suggesting various approaches to understanding and addressing the conflict. Realism focuses on power dynamics and security concerns, Liberalism emphasizes cooperation and international institutions, Constructivism explores identities and narratives, Marxism critiques economic structures, and Feminism highlights gendered impacts and the importance of inclusive peace processes. By applying these theories, we gain a multifaceted understanding of the conflict’s complexities and the potential pathways to resolution.

Do you think any IR theory directly applies to Islamic ideology vs the West (especially in the case of Israel vs Hamas)?

No single IR theory is designed specifically to address ideological conflicts such as Islamic ideology versus the West, but several theories can offer valuable perspectives on these dynamics, particularly in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Realism

Realism might view the ideological conflict between Islamic groups like Hamas and Western-oriented states such as Israel as a secondary factor. While ideology plays a role, realists would emphasize the underlying power struggle and national interests. For instance, Hamas’s actions could be seen as driven by a quest for political power and territorial control, with ideology serving as a tool to mobilize support and legitimize its cause.

Constructivism

Constructivism is particularly well-suited to analyzing ideological conflicts. It focuses on how identities, beliefs, and discourses shape state behaviour and international relations. Constructivists would examine how the narratives of Islamic resistance against perceived Western imperialism influence the actions of Hamas, and how Israeli and Western identities are constructed in opposition to these narratives. This theory highlights the mutual construction of enemy images and the role of historical and cultural context in shaping the conflict.

Liberalism

Liberalism may analyze how ideological conflicts can be mitigated through dialogue, cooperation, and the promotion of democratic values and human rights. In the context of Israel and Hamas, liberalism would advocate for peace processes involving international institutions and emphasize the potential for coexistence and mutual benefit through economic and political cooperation. However, the deep ideological divide poses significant challenges to liberalism’s optimistic outlook on conflict resolution.

Marxism

Marxism would interpret the ideological conflict through the lens of economic and class struggles. It might argue that the ideological rhetoric of groups like Hamas is rooted in the material conditions and economic exploitation experienced by Palestinians. Marxists would emphasize the role of economic inequalities and the influence of capitalist structures in perpetuating the conflict and view the ideological divide as a manifestation of deeper socio-economic issues.

Feminism

Feminism would highlight how the ideological conflict impacts women and other marginalized groups, emphasizing the gendered dimensions of both the Israeli and Palestinian societies. Feminist IR theory would advocate for including women’s voices in peace processes and analysing how patriarchal structures and gender norms contribute to the perpetuation of the conflict.

Summary

While no single IR theory is exclusively focused on ideological conflicts, Constructivism provides the most direct framework for analysing the role of ideology in the Israel-Hamas conflict. It helps understand how identities and beliefs shape actions and how the conflict is perpetuated through mutual perceptions and narratives. Other theories like Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Feminism also offer important insights, highlighting different aspects such as power dynamics, cooperation potentials, economic inequalities, and gender impacts.

From the book “International Relations: Basic Concepts & Global Issues: 2nd Edition”, published by Amazon and available at

International Relations: Basic Concepts & Global Issues: 2nd Edition