The abductees in Gaza – Beyond mere cruelty

Dominant voices in global media coverage of the war in Gaza oscillate between portraying Hamas as a legitimate liberation movement representing Palestinians in Gaza and describing it as a terrorist organization imposing its rule upon them. However, examining the treatment of Israeli abductees in Gaza reveals the limitations of these perspectives and points to a deeper process of transformation in collective identity under Hamas rule that has persisted for almost two decades.

Accumulating testimonies from released abductees describe a systematic pattern of abuse including physical torture, deprivation of basic needs, and persistent death threats. The unique characteristic of this phenomenon lies not only in the abuse itself but in how it has become an integral component of Palestinian collective identity. The documentation and dissemination of abuse on social media, alongside staged release ceremonies and the presentation of abductees’ suffering as a national achievement, reflect a profound process of perceptual change.

International humanitarian law, as established in the Geneva Conventions and additional protocols, recognizes peoples’ right to resist occupation and provides a framework for distinguishing between legitimate struggle and war crimes. The fundamental distinction between prisoners of war and civilian abductees, and between military operations and deliberate abuse, reflects the understanding that even in conflict situations, basic moral boundaries must be preserved. The very existence of these conventions stems from the recognition that national liberation struggles can and should be conducted while maintaining human dignity. Not all means are justified.

Examining national liberation movements in the twentieth century provides an important historical perspective. The African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa maintained a humanitarian code of conduct even at the height of the anti-apartheid struggle. Nelson Mandela repeatedly emphasized that preserving human dignity was an inseparable part of the struggle for justice, not only for moral reasons but also from an understanding that the nature of the struggle shapes the identity of the struggling society. Similarly, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Northern Ireland, despite its violence, recognized the need to maintain a distinction between military and civilian targets and established a code of conduct that prohibited abuse of prisoners.

The case of Gaza demonstrates an entirely different process. Under almost two decades of Hamas rule, a dynamic has developed where the abuse of civilian abductees and prisoners is no longer merely a tactical means – it has become a component of identity perception. Hamas’s conscious choices – refusing Red Cross visits, rejecting basic humanitarian gestures, and turning abuse into public spectacle – reflect a worldview where cruelty itself has become a source of collective pride and identification.

The involvement of families in holding abductees reflects the depth of this process. Even if these are primarily families of Hamas operatives, and despite the fact that the full extent of this phenomenon is still unknown, the very involvement of families in holding civilian abductees indicates a blurring of boundaries between military and family/civilian spheres. This is a process where the deliberate harm and abuse of civilian abductees penetrates the family space and becomes part of constructing a collective memory of national achievement. The phenomenon transcends simplistic definitions of “support” or “opposition” to Hamas; it reflects a deeper change in perceptions of right and wrong, moral justification, and the definition of legitimate struggle.

This reality challenges both the paradigm that sees Hamas as a legitimate liberation movement and the simplistic attempts to completely separate it from the population. While there is a formal distinction between Hamas and Gaza’s civilian population, almost two decades of Hamas rule have profoundly influenced society’s collective mindset. On one hand, Hamas’s actions fundamentally exceed the boundaries of legitimate struggle as defined by international law and as implemented by various historical liberation movements. On the other hand, while maintaining the formal separation between Hamas and the civilian population is important, we must acknowledge that prolonged exposure to its rule has created a deeply troubled society where moral boundaries have been systematically eroded.

Understanding the situation requires recognition of the long-term effects of oppressive rule on shaping collective identity. The focus on questions of military proportionality or formal definitions of Hamas overlooks the implications of the deeper process of transformation in fundamental perceptions of morality and identity. While maintaining the formal distinction between Hamas and the civilian population, we must also recognize how two decades of its rule have fundamentally altered social and moral norms in Gaza. Overlooking this complex reality in favor of oversimplified separations misses the true challenge at hand.

This is particularly true in the digital age, where documentation of abuse and its dissemination on social media become part of the process of building collective identity. Social media is not merely a platform for spreading messages – it is a space where perceptions of identity, legitimacy, and morality are shaped. The way in which abuse of abductees is presented, documented, and disseminated both reflects and shapes collective identity perception.

The abductee case exposes the problematic nature of global media coverage. If Hamas is a legitimate liberation movement representing Palestinians in Gaza – one cannot ignore that the treatment of abductees exceeds anything a legitimate liberation movement does. If Hamas is a terrorist organization that imposed itself on the population – one cannot ignore that many years of rule have profoundly influenced the collective identity of that population. Adopting either of these perspectives reflects an avoidance of confronting the true complexity of the situation: how prolonged Hamas rule has blurred the boundaries between military and civilian spheres and reshaped the moral and identity boundaries of an entire society.

The challenge facing any future solution extends beyond the political and military realm. Global media, in its focus on questions of proportionality and casualty numbers, misses the deepest threat of undermining the shared human infrastructure necessary for any process of rehabilitation and reconciliation. The treatment of Israeli abductees and the public display of abuse as a source of pride is not just another symptom of the conflict. It testifies to how cruelty toward the other has transformed from a tactical tool into a constitutive component of identity.