In his poignant address commemorating Holocaust remembrance, President Joe Biden attended the troubling resurgence of antisemitism, linking it directly to Hamas’s Oct. 7 assault on Israel. Drawing upon the solemn commitment encapsulated in “Never Again,” Biden expressed deep concern over the rapid erosion of the public’s memory, stating, “Here we are, not 75 years later but just seven and a half months later, and people are already forgetting. They’re already forgetting that Hamas unleashed this terror, that it was Hamas that brutalized Israelis, that it was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages.”
Indeed, despite perpetrating one of history’s most documented massacres, Hamas appears conspicuously absent from current public discourse, and even its designation as a terrorist organization has increasingly come into question.
The dearth of discussion surrounding the group is evident in the rebranding of the conflict from the “Israel-Hamas War” to the “Israel-Gaza War” by most media outlets. Meanwhile, across college campuses nationwide, pro-Palestinian demonstrations often gloss over, rationalize and even justify Hamas violence.
This raises pressing questions about how Hamas, after carrying out its deadliest assaults on largely innocent civilians, succeeded in reshaping public perception to its favor.
Political scientist William Riker offers one answer. In his book “The Art of Political Manipulation,” Riker explains how political actors in disadvantaged positions strategize to turn potential political losses into victories. One prevalent strategy involves introducing a fresh perspective to align previously unsupportive parties with the disadvantaged group.
For Hamas, such reframing has proven pivotal. By portraying its Oct. 7 attack on Israel as part of a struggle against an alleged white colonial regime, Hamas depicted its actions not as brutal acts of violence but as a response to 75 years of oppression and colonization.
Such a perspective conveniently ignores significant facts about Israel’s demographics — most Israelis are of Middle Eastern or North African descent, having experienced colonization themselves, and the majority are Jews who escaped persecution and ethnic cleansing without a colonial “motherland” to return to. Nevertheless, Hamas’s narrative has struck a chord, particularly among liberals sympathetic to anti-colonial sentiments.
By strategically manipulating the framing of the events of Oct. 7 and their aftermath in this way, Hamas does not need to seek to justify its violence outright. Instead, it redirects the conversation toward themes of colonialism. In this sense, it manipulates the debate by shifting it away from the ethical dilemma of targeting civilians to meet a political goalto the question of whether violence is justified as part of a national liberation struggle against colonial domination.
This strategy, it should be noted, doesn’t entail altering someone’s beliefs but rather urging them to choose from predetermined options.
By introducing colonialism and white oppression as dimensions, Hamas orchestrated a scenario where even humanist liberal individuals might overlook its violence, feeling compelled to prioritize their support due to their stance on colonialism and racial domination.
Hamas has adeptly utilized this strategy by embracing the ideas of Frantz Fanon, a prominent psychiatrist and anti-colonial revolutionary whose ideas strongly resonate among leftist circles. Fanon argued that anti-colonial movements inherently involve violence, not solely due to the absence of alternatives but also because such violence is viewed as redemptive and therapeutic for the oppressed — a “cleansing force” in his own words.
Initially, the unprecedented scale of the Oct. 7 attack and the barbarity of the acts committed by Hamas fighters — vividly documented through victims hacked social media accounts and body-cam footage disseminated by the organization itself — undermined its customary portrayal as an oppressed underdog. But as international condemnation mounted, drawing parallels between Hamas’s tactics and those of ISIS, global leaders rallied in support of Israel.
In response, Hamas altered its strategy, removing incriminating footage and adjusting its narrative. Hamas leaders, much to the chagrin of their media interviewers, outwardly denied targeting non-combatants, employing rhetoric inspired by Fanon to claim they only targeted “settlers and soldiers.” This reframing was intended to shift the focus from innocent civilians and terrorists to a struggle between the “indigenous population” and “colonial oppressors.”
Yet Hamas is far from a national liberation movement engaged in decolonization efforts. Instead, it is an oppressive regime with an expansionist agenda aspiring to bring the whole world under an Islamic system “with No Zionism, No Treacherous Christianity,” according to its own charter. Hamas’s regime routinely violates human rights, suppresses dissent, discriminates against minorities, oppresses women and the LGBTQ community. By exploiting the Palestinian people for its survival, Hamas shows a blatant disregard for the well-being of Gaza’s residents.
The international community’s failure to hold Hamas accountable and its mischaracterization of the group’s actions have only emboldened Hamas. By focusing criticism solely on Israel, global actors inadvertently support a group with no interest in peace or the welfare of its people. This negligence allows Hamas to continue its destructive path, shirking any responsibility to protect its own people as it successfully shifts the blame onto others.
A thorough assessment of Hamas’s actions is essential in discussions about Gaza. Without accountability and increased pressure on Hamas, the suffering of Gaza’s residents and the Israeli hostages it holds — including five American citizens — will only intensify, complicating any hopes for resolution and leading to further loss of life. Continued failure to confront Hamas’s destructive tactics not only worsens the humanitarian crisis in Gaza but also suggests that, under certain framing, acts of terror could lead to significant political advantages.
Tamar Hofnung, Ph.D., is the Israel Institute Fellow at UCLA’s Y&S Nazarian Center for Israel Studies and UCLA’s Department of Sociology. Prior to joining UCLA, Hofnung held the Rothschild Postdoctoral Fellowship at UC Berkeley’s Sociology Department.