When one studies and thinks about the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is common to hear some inquiries. And when this is done, in the midst of the confrontation, as happened from June 2014 - this being a confrontation that lasted 50 days and caused 2,200 deaths, of these, 67 on the “Israeli” side - it is likely to hear: to be or not to be in favor of Hamas?
In general and initially, perhaps several people respond with limited foundations and an intuition of what is just. Ultimately, defending those who struggle for the liberation of the Palestinian people may seem right at first glance. However, it requires more. It is necessary to go beyond that correct obviousness for those who are dedicated to researching and advocating for the Palestinian cause. And so, at the intersection of theory and practice, most of the time (if not almost always), well outside of academia, are where the correct answers to certain questions can be found, as is the case with Chairman Mao Zedong’s reflections on the principal contradiction, the principal aspect, and the nature of contradiction.
Those concepts, which are part of a whole Maoist thesis,1 will be explored with a focus on the initial question of this article, without encompassing the entirety of its reflection, even in relation to the comprehensive application of the thesis to the conflict in question. Therefore, it is for this reason that the article will work around two fundamental issues: the presentation of the concrete Palestinian reality and the observation of that conflict, as a phenomenon, in light of Mao’s concepts.
The “Palestinian territory,” in quotation marks2 - which was never or what should have been - today it is divided into two disconnected land portions, which can be briefly characterized as follows: Cisjordan,3 to the north, a set of islands surrounded by “Israel,” and the Gaza Strip, in the central-west, a long and narrow piece of land, with 365 square kilometers, equally controlled by the enemy “State.” Both are visible on the presented map.
When it comes to control, the dominance of Cisjordan is attributed to the “Israeli” settlements that occupy the “Palestinian territory” – appearing as a geographic metonymy of the Israel-Palestine conflict – and the control of Gaza is achieved through the occupation of everything that surrounds it: sea, sky, and land, which, in this case, includes the borders with Egypt (Rafah Crossing) and “Israeli territory.” Undoubtedly characterizing a relationship of national subjugation of one (the Palestinians) by the other (the “State of Israel”).
In Gaza, just to give you an idea, the control is so tight that fishing is only allowed up to a certain zone, up to 5km to 10km offshore to be more precise. And the Rafah crossing, their only land border outside of Israel, has been under a total blockade since 2008 following Hamas’ election. In logistical terms, this represents, for example, the impossibility of the entry of weapons, which Hamas does not deny, the movement of people seeking refuge or medical treatment, and the entry of basic supplies such as food, water, gasoline, etc.
In this way, beyond differences, as some perceive the phenomenon, the development of this conflict has been deepening the antagonistic contradiction between the “State of Israel” and the Palestinian resistance, as we will understand shortly.
That being said, speaking about occupation is not just discussing a lack of autonomy, but also denouncing the complete deprivation of essential matters, such as being prevented from fishing for food in one’s own land. Furthermore, the “Palestinian territories,” which lack connectivity between each other, also tend to diminish as history and the map show us. Therefore, when it comes to “Israel,” which is the central aspect of the main contradiction, the tendency is to occupy new and new lands, and this is the essence of an imperialist nation.
Furthermore, and concluding this point with a summary of Ilan Pappe’s perspective, it is worth noting that the history of Palestine is the history of a colonization process like any other, which, at its inception, does not inspire mass defense of the national liberation of the colonized people. Instead, it gives rise to a fallacy surrounding “coexistence” between two states based on a “solution” endorsed and created by the colonizer’s state (“Israel”) and the colonized state (Palestine), as if that would put an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict. As we will see, in light of Mao’s principles, this would not resolve anything.
According to Mao Zedong, contradiction exists in all phenomena, and it is essential for us to recognize its existence, especially when we want to observe, analyze, and take action on a contradiction. With that said, and starting from this concept, contradiction for Mao is: “the basis of the simple forms of motion (for instance, mechanical motion) and still more so of the complex forms of motion.”4 For example, the movement of the conflict in question.
In this way, recognizing contradiction as something inherent to phenomena is, therefore, acknowledging that there is a struggle of opposites in all of them – ultimately, contradiction is also the “law of the unity of opposites”5 – and that this ongoing struggle within the phenomenon is precisely what drives and develops it. In other words, to understand a phenomenon, it is necessary to perceive the “movement of contradictions.”
However, when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, like any other phenomenon, it can be said that there are a series of contradictions. For example, the contradiction between Hamas and Fatah,6 the contradiction between the “Israeli” left and the “State of Israel,” the contradiction between Fatah and the “State of Israel,” the contradiction between Hamas and the “Israeli” left, and so on. But, even though these and many other contradictions exist, there is one that is the primary one. This is the contradiction that determines the development of the phenomenon and begins to answer the initial question of this article.
In the words of Chairman Mao: “if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position. (...) Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved.”7 But what would be the principal contradiction in the Israel-Palestine conflict?
The current main contradiction, as it can always be overcome or modified, is between the “State of Israel” and the resistance of the Palestinian people, which is this struggle of opposites, and no other, that plays the leading role in the phenomenon in question. Ultimately, if the conflict exists, it is because the “State of Israel” continues to oppress the Palestinian people and expand its colonization plan, as the principal antagonistic contradiction. On the other hand, the Palestinians continue to resist and fight against this. But what does that complex sentence in the middle of the phrase mean?
According to Mao, within the principal contradiction, which we have already identified as the contradiction between the “State of Israel” and the Palestinian resistance, one of the two opposing aspects plays the primary role, thus assuming the dominant role in the principal contradiction. With that said, and observing the phenomenon itself: “Israel” colonizes the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are subjected to the colonization of “Israel.” In this case, the primary aspect of the principal contradiction is the “State of Israel.” Because here, it is the one that gives quality to the phenomenon, in other words, it is the one that qualifies this contradiction as a contradiction of national subjugation.
Conclusion: Whether we like it or not, the solution to this conflict lies in the end of the “State of Israel.” And that, it’s worth mentioning, is a materialistic-dialectical reflection on the phenomenon, not a choice of framing or cutting, as they like to say in academia.
Also, in addition to being the main aspect of the primary contradiction in the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is important to note that the type of contradiction between the “State of Israel” and the Palestinian resistance, unlike several other contradictions (for example, the contradiction between the various groups within the Palestinian resistance), is of an antagonistic nature. Because if we analyze the two poles of this contradiction, we will see that antagonism is the form of struggle between these opposites. And that is why, therefore, the contradiction between the “State of Israel” and the Palestinian resistance will only end when one side prevails over the other, as Mao envisions in his thesis. And we hope (and struggle for) in this case that the second side prevails over the first.
In this way, considering that today, the main contradiction of this phenomenon is this, “State of Israel” versus the resistance of the Palestinian people; that the “State of Israel” is the main aspect of this contradiction; that the contradiction between it and the resistance of the Palestinian people is antagonistic; and that Hamas, as part of the Palestinian resistance, is the only organization leading this fight in the way it demands, armed and without concessions, it is alongside it that defenders of the solution to this contradiction should be. Therefore, it can be said without reservation that today, being supportive of Hamas is being supportive of the Palestinian cause.