Asymmetries

I suddenly realized something about the conflict between Israel and Hamas — something so obvious that most of us overlook it. And yet, I believe it's central to the intense emotions many of us are experiencing: the anger, the moral outrage, the sense of injustice, futility, and helplessness.

We often say — and truly believe — that both Israel and Hamas should be held accountable for their actions. But then why does it feel like Israel is the one being relentlessly piled on? Is it simply because Israel is behaving worse?

I don’t think so.

The real reason, I believe, lies in a fundamental asymmetry of the conflict.

Israel can be held accountable — and is, every single day. By its own citizens, its own media, its courts, and by the international community. There are rules, standards, and legal frameworks we expect it to uphold. And so we scrutinize, we criticize, we protest, we judge.

Hamas, on the other hand, is a terrorist organization — a non-state actor, operating outside any accepted legal framework or governing norms. It has no courts, no free press, no civic institutions, no mechanisms of self-restraint. It is accountable to no one, not even to the Palestinian people who live under its rule. In fact, many of its supporters celebrate this lack of accountability as a kind of virtue — proof that it isn’t constrained by “Western values” or international law.

Let me be clear: I would never argue that we should lower the standards we apply to Israel in order to create a "level playing field." Quite the opposite. The solution is not to demand less of Israel — it’s to demand more of Hamas. To insist on the same level of accountability, transparency, and moral responsibility from all parties engaged in violence, especially those who claim to act in the name of justice or liberation.

Until we recognize and address this fundamental asymmetry, our debates about this conflict will remain emotionally charged and morally incoherent. If we want to discuss this tragedy honestly and productively, we need to keep this imbalance — between a state bound by law and a group defined by lawlessness — firmly in view.