Israel, Hamas, and the Fight: Shattering Myths
Modern warfare operates on at least three fronts: physical, psychological (Psyops), and informational (IO). While traditional battles dominate headlines, it’s the psychological and information warfare that are waged far more frequently—often going unnoticed. These two fronts have become essential tools in modern propaganda, particularly among radical Islamic terrorist organizations like Hamas. Terrorists such as Hamas have mastered the art of manipulating narratives, spreading disinformation, and manipulating public opinion globally. Their success doesn’t lie only in rockets or tunnels, but in the way they control narratives, exploit social media, and manipulate emotions to serve their agenda. This invisible battleground shapes perception, sows confusion, and rallies support. It is a relentless, global war of minds that happens every day, all around us—making psychological and information warfare perhaps the most powerful weapons in the arsenal of radical extremists today.
Hence, I decided to create awareness of the situation by writing this article. In today’s world, information and psychological warfare travel at lightning speed, reaching every corner of the globe—including Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, mainstream media like BBC, CNN, and Reuters, along with some local outlets, have contributed to the confusion by spreading misleading narratives about the war between Israel and Hamas, as well as its broader impact on Gaza. These reports often lack balance, leaving people with a distorted view of reality. Many Sri Lankans accept these narratives without verifying the facts, falling victim to the influence of modern propaganda. This is not just about foreign conflicts—it affects how we think, feel, and respond. So today, I’m addressing ten common myths believed by the world. These myths are products of information warfare, and it’s time we challenge them with evidence, context, and critical thinking.
Myth 1: The Conflict is Purely for the Land
The Israel–Hamas conflict is not about land; it is rooted in radical Islamic ideology that fosters deep-seated hatred against Jews and Christians. While territorial disputes are often highlighted, the true driving factor of the conflict is the belief within certain factions, like Hamas, that Israel—simply by existing as a Jewish state—is an affront to Islam. The conflict goes beyond territorial disputes; it is about the destruction of Israel and the broader desire to erase Jewish and Christian presence in the region. Hamas’ charter explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel, viewing the state not as a territorial entity but as an existential threat to the Islamic world. This mindset is deeply embedded in the ideology of radical Islam, where Jews and Christians are seen as enemies to be defeated and annihilated as a whole, regardless of territorial disputes.
The so-called Palestinian cause is used as a proxy by surrounding Arab nations to justify their own attacks against Israel. These nations, namely Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon have, for decades, rallied around the idea of defending Palestinian rights, but their true motive is to challenge the legitimacy of Israel itself, which is seen as a blasphemy in the eyes of radical Islam. Although Iran is not a direct neighbour of Israel, it aligns itself with the interests of the aforementioned nations, often acting through regional proxies such as Hezbollah and Houthis to exert influence and challenge Israel’s position in the Middle East. Iran, though distant geographically, is the head of the snake, the leader of the axis of evil in the middle east. The conflict, therefore, is not about land or self-determination, but about religious supremacy and the refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state.
Note: The Arab nations, surrounding Israel, despite claiming to support the Palestinian cause, refuse to accept Palestinian refugees. This hypocrisy highlights that the conflict is not solely about land or rights, but also about broader geopolitical interests, with Arab nations using the Palestinian cause as a proxy for their own agendas.
Myth 2: Palestine is a Country by Itself
The notion that Palestine is a fully recognized and sovereign country is a myth that misrepresents both the historical and political reality. Historically, there was never an independent state called “Palestine” in the modern sense. The region, referred to as “Palestine,” has been under the control of various empires, such as the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate, before the creation of Israel in 1948. The name “Palestine” was given by the Roman Empire in 135 A.D to Judea, as an insult and a means to erase the Jewish connection to the land, derived from the Philistines, ancient enemies of Israel. Although the term “Palestine” has been used for centuries to describe the area, there was never a sovereign Palestinian state with distinct, independent political institutions prior to the establishment of Israel. The Palestinian Authority governs parts of the West Bank, and Hamas controls Gaza, but these territories do not form a unified, fully independent state.
In 1988, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) declared an independent Palestinian state, which has been recognized by some countries, but it has not resulted in full statehood or sovereignty. Palestine does not meet the criteria for statehood under international law, as it lacks control over its borders, airspace, economy, and foreign relations. The political division between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza complicates efforts to establish a unified government. This fragmentation further hinders Palestine’s ability to function as a single, cohesive state. Moreover, ongoing territorial disputes and the lack of an agreement with Israel on key issues such as Jerusalem and refugees prevent Palestine from achieving complete sovereignty. Therefore, the claim that Palestine is a self-sufficient, sovereign country overlooks the political fragmentation and territorial challenges that continue to impede its statehood.
Myth 3: Hamas is a Resistance Movement
While Hamas often describes itself as a resistance group fighting occupation, that description doesn’t capture the full picture. Hamas is a militant Islamist organization founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it combines political activity with armed conflict. It is designated as a terrorist organization by numerous countries including the United States, the European Union, Canada, and the United Kingdom. These designations are not just political labels—they are based on Hamas’ long history of targeting civilians through suicide bombings, child soldiers, indiscriminate rocket fire, and other violent means. Unlike conventional resistance movements that often focus on military targets or symbols of state power, Hamas’ actions have frequently included attacks on cafes, buses, homes, and schools—locations filled with civilians. These tactics violate the laws of armed conflict and distinguish the group from traditional resistance movements that operate under internationally accepted rules of war.
Moreover, Hamas’ charter and political language reject the existence of Israel and frame the conflict as a religious struggle, not merely a territorial or nationalistic one. While it has modified some of its public messaging in recent years, calling for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders in some documents, it has never formally revoked its original founding charter that calls for Israel’s destruction. This ideological stance, combined with the group’s deliberate use of violence against noncombatants, has led to widespread condemnation. Hamas’ strategy of embedding its military infrastructure within civilian areas in Gaza, effectively using civilians as human shields, and recruitment of child soldiers further complicates its self-portrayal as a resistance group. A legitimate resistance movement does not justify its goals by committing war crimes or undermining the safety of its own population. While the Palestinian cause for statehood is internationally recognized, Hamas’ approach has largely harmed that cause by inviting devastating reprisals and eroding global sympathy.
Myth 4: The October 7 Attack was Justified
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a horrific attack on Israel, killing over a thousand civilians, kidnapping more than 200, and committing widespread atrocities. Some have tried to justify the attack as a reaction to Israeli oppression or as part of a long-standing struggle for Palestinian liberation. However, no such justification exists under international law or basic ethical principles. Attacks on civilians, particularly the mass murder, abduction, and rape that occurred on October 7, are considered war crimes and crimes against humanity, regardless of the political or military grievances behind them. The principle of proportionality, which is central to the laws of armed conflict, asserts that the harm inflicted on civilians must not exceed the military advantage gained. The sheer brutality and scope of this attack, targeting innocents and not military targets, is indefensible and cannot be legitimized, no matter the circumstances.
While many Palestinians rightly condemn Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, resorting to terrorism—especially in the form of indiscriminate attacks on civilians—only fuels the cycle of violence and harm. The October 7 attack was not a calculated military operation targeting enemy combatants, but an act of terror aimed at causing maximum civilian casualties. International law does not allow such actions, regardless of the provocations or political motivations behind them. Hamas’ justification for this attack only further entrenches hatred and violence, making it harder for any peace process to succeed. Those who attempt to justify such acts fail to recognize the larger picture: real peace can only come from dialogue, mutual recognition, and respect for human rights, not through the mass killing of innocent civilians.
Myth 5: Hamas Represents All Palestinians
It’s a widespread misconception that Hamas speaks for the entire Palestinian population, but this isn’t accurate. Palestinians are politically diverse, with varying views on governance, resistance, and peaceful coexistence. While Hamas has been the de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip since 2007, the group rose to power in a violent takeover from the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs the West Bank. Many Palestinians have deep grievances with Hamas’s authoritarian rule, corruption, and prioritization of military aims over civilian welfare. In Gaza, criticism of Hamas is risky due to its crackdown on dissent. Beyond Gaza, many Palestinians support other parties such as Fatah or smaller leftist and secular nationalist factions. In short, Palestinians are not a monolith, and equating Hamas with all Palestinians erases the voices of those who seek peace, reform, or democratic alternatives to armed conflict.
Hamas’ ideology is rooted in political Islamism, and its founding charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel. This radical position, along with its use of violence, makes it deeply controversial even among Palestinians. Polls have shown fluctuating support for Hamas, often influenced by events such as military conflicts or perceived failures by the Palestinian Authority. However, temporary surges in support during crises should not be interpreted as blanket endorsement of Hamas’ ideology or actions. Many Palestinians feel trapped between an ineffective and corrupt PA and a militant Hamas, with limited democratic means to change leadership. The absence of elections since 2006 further alienates the population from those who claim to represent them. Thus, when governments or media outlets treat Hamas as the singular voice of the Palestinian people, they ignore the broader context, silencing millions of Palestinians who neither voted for nor endorse Hamas and who are also victims of its rule.
Myth 6: Israel Started the Conflict
A critical misunderstanding of the Israel–Hamas conflict is the claim that Israel started the violence. In reality, the conflict began with the hostile actions of surrounding Arab nations and local Arab groups towards Jewish settlers, even before the establishment of Israel. Jewish immigration to Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was largely driven by the need to escape persecution in Europe and a deep historical connection to the land. While some lands were indeed purchased legally from Arab landowners, others were settled in areas where Jews had lived in ancient times. The reaction from local Arabs and neighboring Arab nations, however, was one of violent opposition, starting with attacks on Jewish settlers. These early settlements were not illegal, but the Arab response was aggressive, seeking to prevent the Jewish population from establishing a homeland in so called Palestine. The violence escalated long before Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, when Arab forces attempted to prevent the creation of the state.
Furthermore, after Israel’s creation in 1948, neighboring Arab countries launched a series of invasions in an attempt to wipe Israel off the map, rejecting the United Nations’ partition plan and the legitimacy of a Jewish state. Despite Israel’s legitimate claim to the land, having been recognized by the international community, the surrounding Arab nations continued their refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The conflict intensified as these nations, including Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq, contributed to the attacks, while local Palestinians were caught in the crossfire. Even after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas — which had taken control of the territory — chose violence instead of peace, continuing a campaign of terror against Israeli civilians. This underscores that the conflict is not a simple territorial dispute but one deeply rooted in a long history of aggression against the Jewish people, beginning long before Israel even existed as a state. The myth that Israel started the conflict disregards the historical context and shifts blame away from the real aggressors — those who rejected peace and sought to erase Israel from the map.
Note: In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected a peace offer at the Camp David Summit that included a Palestinian state with over 90% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and East Jerusalem as its capital. U.S. President Bill Clinton later said, “Arafat said no to everything”. [source: The Times of Israel]
Myth 7: Gaza is Still Occupied by Israel
Israel’s actions in Gaza, including the control over airspace, borders, and coastal waters, are necessary for its national security. Since its withdrawal in 2005, Israel has maintained these security measures to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza, which could be used by Hamas against Israeli civilians. This withdrawal included the dismantling of settlements and military forces, effectively ending direct Israeli governance over Gaza. These measures are essential to stop terrorist activities in Israel, especially after the significant increase in suicide bombings before the security measures were in place. While critics argue that these actions amount to a blockade or occupation, Israel is simply exercising its right to defend itself against an ongoing security threat from Hamas. As a result, Gaza is not technically occupied in the traditional military sense but controlled in a way that ensures Israel’s protection which is essential for the safety of its citizens.
Despite Israel’s withdrawal and the lack of direct governance, Israel’s control over key aspects of Gaza’s borders and resources remains a vital security measure. These actions, such as restrictions on movement, are necessary to prevent Hamas from smuggling weapons into Gaza, which could be used in terrorist attacks against Israel. The measures are not about punishing the population but are aimed at protecting Israeli citizens from the ongoing security threat posed by Hamas. While some may view these restrictions as a blockade, they are essential for preventing the entry of weapons that could be used to launch attacks. The debate about whether these actions constitute an occupation under international law continues, but the focus remains on security and preventing terrorism, not on controlling Gaza. These measures are critical to ensuring the safety of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians.
Note: After Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, Hamas took control and burned down the buildings and infrastructure left behind by Israel, including greenhouses, effectively destroying valuable assets that could have supported Gaza’s economy.
Myth 8: Israel Deliberately Targets Civilians
One of the most emotionally charged claims in the Israel–Hamas conflict is that Israel deliberately targets civilians in Gaza. This accusation often stems from the fabricated numbers of civilian deaths and the images of destruction that flood the media. The Israeli government has taken significant measures to ensure its military operations are directed at Hamas combatants and infrastructure, not at civilians. It uses measures like phone calls, leaflet drops, and “roof knocking” (warning strikes) to minimize civilian casualties. The tragic reality of warfare in densely populated areas like Gaza is that even precise targeting often results in collateral damage. Nevertheless, civilian casualties, while deeply concerning, do not automatically mean civilians were the intended targets. Under the laws of armed conflict, intent matters significantly when assessing legality. The difference between a civilian being tragically caught in crossfire and being directly targeted is not just legal hair-splitting—it’s foundational to international humanitarian law.
Moreover, it is widely documented that Hamas deliberately embeds its military operations within civilian infrastructure—launching rockets from residential neighborhoods, storing weapons in schools, and using hospitals as command centers. This behavior is a direct violation of the laws of war and greatly increases the risk to civilians during retaliatory strikes. Israel’s critics often ignore this tactic or place sole blame on Israel for the ensuing civilian harm. However, the responsibility for civilian safety during armed conflict is shared, and when one side uses civilians as human shields, it complicates the ethical and legal landscape dramatically. That said, Israel is not beyond scrutiny—numerous organizations, including Israeli human rights groups, have called for investigations into certain strikes and warned about disproportionate force. Still, the claim that Israel has a policy of deliberately targeting civilians is not supported by concrete evidence and distracts from legitimate concerns about how to better protect civilians in modern urban warfare.
Myth 9: Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza
The term “genocide” is extremely serious and has a precise legal definition under international law. According to the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide refers to acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. While the civilian death toll in Gaza is tragically high, and international concern over Israel’s military operations is significant, no credible legal institution—such as the International Criminal Court—has officially declared Israel’s actions as genocide. Human rights groups may use strong language to criticize the scale of destruction and suffering, but allegations of genocide require clear evidence of intent to eradicate an entire group of people. Without such intent being proven, it is legally incorrect to classify Israeli actions under this term, regardless of how morally or politically troubling one may find them.
Calling Israel’s military campaign genocide not only misrepresents the legal standards but also distorts the realities of the conflict. Israel targets Hamas infrastructure, which is frequently located in densely populated civilian areas—a tactic Hamas is accused of deliberately using to deter or complicate Israeli strikes. While this leads to devastating collateral damage, especially in a besieged area like Gaza, it is not the same as an intent to destroy a population. Moreover, Israel continues to permit humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, despite hostilities, which contradicts the claim of a genocidal campaign. Accusations of genocide, especially when unfounded or exaggerated, also risk diminishing the gravity of actual genocides, such as those in Rwanda, Bosnia, or during the Holocaust. It is entirely legitimate—and indeed necessary—to criticize the proportionality, legality, and humanitarian impact of Israeli operations, but it must be done with language rooted in fact, not inflammatory rhetoric that undermines legal clarity and inflames tensions further.
Note: In early April 2025, Hamas quietly revised its previously reported Gaza death toll, removing thousands of names and revealing that the majority of those killed were men of combat age. This raised serious doubts about the accuracy of its earlier claims, which emphasized high civilian casualties, particularly among women and children. Independent analysts noted that roughly 72% of the revised list were males aged 13 to 55—consistent with the typical profile of combatants. [source: Fox News]
Myth 10: Israel is an Apartheid State
The accusation that Israel is an apartheid state is an oversimplification of a complex situation and misrepresents the nature of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Apartheid, as it was practiced in South Africa, was a state-enforced system of racial segregation and oppression that denied non-white citizens basic rights, such as voting and freedom of movement. In contrast, Israel’s Arab citizens, who make up about 20% of the population, have full political rights, including the right to vote, run for office, and access to healthcare and education. While the West Bank and Gaza are under different forms of control and governance, the claim that Israel enforces apartheid throughout its territory overlooks the legal and political rights afforded to Israeli Arabs. The separation between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank is not a product of racial policy but is driven by security concerns resulting from terrorism and violence.
The construction of the Israeli security barrier (Wall) in the early 2000s is often cited as evidence of apartheid, yet its purpose is primarily to protect Israeli citizens from attacks. The barrier was built in response to a surge in suicide bombings during the Second Intifada, with the aim of preventing terrorist infiltration. Although its route has been controversial, particularly because it cuts through Palestinian territories, it is not designed to enforce racial segregation. Critics argue that the Wall disrupts Palestinian communities, limiting access to resources and mobility, but it is fundamentally a security measure, not a system of racial discrimination. Moreover, Israel has made multiple attempts to negotiate peace and offer a two-state solution, which suggests its actions are driven by territorial and security concerns, not an apartheid-like system. Equating the situation in Israel with apartheid neglects the complexities of the region and the need for a peaceful resolution.
Wrap Up
The Israel–Hamas conflict is not just a war of rockets and raids—it’s a war of narratives. In our interconnected, media-saturated world, information has become the most potent weapon. Radical groups like Hamas understand this better than anyone. They exploit global sympathy, distort facts, and manipulate emotions to rally support for their cause, especially among those unfamiliar with the deeper historical, religious, and political dynamics at play. When misinformation spreads unchecked, it shapes public opinion, fuels bias and weakens the global fight against terrorism. Many in Sri Lanka, and elsewhere, unknowingly absorb these distortions, mistaking propaganda for truth. This is why myth-busting is not just helpful—it’s essential. The goal isn’t to take sides blindly, but to cut through the fog of war and uncover the truth. Only by recognizing these tactics can we begin to build a more informed, thoughtful, and discerning public conscience.
I wrote this post because silence in the face of falsehood is complicity. Too often, the global narrative is hijacked by loud, emotion-driven misinformation that drowns out facts. The myths I’ve addressed are not harmless misunderstandings—they’re calculated lies designed to erode Israel’s legitimacy, glorify terrorism, and polarize people into simplistic camps of oppressor vs. oppressed. These myths have found fertile ground in Sri Lanka, in part because of our own complex history with conflict and injustice. But understanding one’s pain does not justify embracing falsehoods about another’s. Truth must be our standard, no matter how uncomfortable or unpopular it may be. I urge my fellow Sri Lankans to challenge what they hear, to question what they see, and to seek out reliable sources. Let’s not allow ourselves to be pawns in someone else’s psychological war. In an age where narratives shape reality, knowing the truth—and standing for it—is our first act of resistance.