The Moral Dilemma in Condemning — or Not Condemning — Hamas
Navigating the morally complex landscape surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict and its multifaceted entities, such as Hamas, is a daunting task. That is particularly true when examining the schisms it can create within political coalitions like France’s New Union for Progress and Ecology (NUPES). For a political bloc aiming to unite different factions of the left-wing spectrum, their inability to find common ground on this contentious issue demonstrates how deeply divisive it can be.
The Complexity of Hamas
Hamas exists as both a military and a political entity, with one arm launching attacks against Israel — often against civilians — while the other provides essential social services to the Gaza Strip. This duality creates a quandary when deciding whether to condemn the organization outright.
On one hand, there’s an argument to be made that Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by various countries including the United States and the European Union, is involved in violent actions that are both morally and legally indefensible. These actions cause suffering and loss of life among Israeli civilians. On this basis, condemnation seems not only appropriate but morally imperative.
On the other hand, some argue that Hamas serves as a form of resistance against an occupying force, representing the desperation and fight for dignity of a beleaguered people. Additionally, they assert that the group’s provision of social services to an impoverished Gaza population should not be overlooked. These perspectives often caution against lumping Hamas into a monolithic entity devoid of nuance.
A Mirror to Internal Conflicts
This is a quandary not just for international observers but also for political parties. The recent incident with NUPES in France aptly illustrates this. PS, EELV, and PCF, three of the four parties in the NUPES coalition, were quick to condemn Hamas for their recent attacks, aligning themselves with the international stance that labels Hamas a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, France Unbowed (LFI) took a different path by characterizing Hamas as a resistance movement. This divergence led to the collapse of the NUPES alliance, as PS decided to suspend their involvement in it and the Greens followed suit1. The incident exposed the deep rifts within the French left over the Israel-Palestine conflict and its implications for the 2027 presidential election.
These divergent views within NUPES serve as a microcosm for a much larger debate within left-wing circles. That debate is between those who prioritize solidarity with what they see as an oppressed group and those who uphold a universalistic human rights framework that categorically condemns violent tactics against civilians. This debate has intensified in recent years, especially in the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 that killed hundreds of people. Some left-wing groups, such as Students for Justice in Palestine and La France Insoumise, praised the attack as a victory for the Palestinian resistance, while others, such as Europe Écologie Les Verts and the New Israel Fund, denounced it as a horrific act of terrorism. The left-wing divide on Israel-Palestine is not only a moral dilemma, but also a political challenge for parties and coalitions that seek to balance their values and interests.
The Implications for Left-wing Politics
Both of these stances have implications for what the left-wing project can and should be. The side choosing solidarity with the oppressed may risk appearing to condone violence and thereby alienate moderates or those with human rights concerns. The side choosing universal human rights may risk appearing indifferent to systemic structures of oppression and occupation, thereby losing the support of those for whom this is a core issue. For instance, some human rights advocates, such as independent expert Rudi Muhammad, have argued that international solidarity is a precondition for human dignity and a human-centered approach to development, and that it has a bridge-building function across all divides and distinctions.
Where I Stand
Given the complexity of the issue, it’s crucial to separate the fight for justice and equality for the Palestinian people from the violent tactics employed by organizations like Hamas. Condemning the actions that intentionally harm civilians does not equate to a condemnation of a people’s right to self-determination and dignity. In the case of NUPES, finding a unified stance on this issue might require recentering their shared values. Could they not stand against both systemic oppression and violence against civilians? Shouldn’t the left, if it stands for justice and equality, condemn any action that undermines these principles — regardless of its source?
In summary, the question of whether to condemn Hamas puts individuals and organizations before a moral and political crucible. It tests the very fibers of one’s ethical fabric and leaves one pondering: Can you stand for justice if your allegiance to a cause blinds you to its flaws?
