A House Divided: Conflict Dynamics Between Hamas and Fatah

This article explores the intra-Palestinian conflict between Hamas and Fatah through the lens of conflict analysis, focusing on the historical, ideological, and political divides that fuel ongoing rivalry. It examines the behavioural dynamics of each party, the power imbalance between Gaza and the West Bank, and the environment in which the conflict persists. The article concludes by outlining sustainable solutions rooted in inclusive dialogue, political reform, and grassroots engagement.

Keywords: Hamas, Fatah, intra-Palestinian conflict, mediation, power imbalance, conflict environment, sustainable peace, political legitimacy

Conflict Analysis: The Hamas-Fatah conflict is a longstanding internal Palestinian division that has fragmented national governance and undermined efforts toward Palestinian self-determination. Though both factions claim to represent the interests of the Palestinian people, their diverging ideologies and strategies have driven them into repeated confrontation since the early 2000s.

Fatah, the dominant party in the Palestinian Authority (PA), was established in the 1950s and has traditionally pursued a secular, nationalist approach. It has shown a willingness to engage diplomatically with Israel and is internationally recognised as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In contrast, Hamas emerged during the First Intifada in 1987 as an Islamist resistance movement. It maintains a more confrontational stance toward Israel, grounded in its religious ideology and refusal to recognise the Israeli state.

The 2006 legislative elections marked a turning point. Hamas achieved a surprising electoral victory, winning a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council. This democratic win exposed deep fault lines in Palestinian politics. The following year, violent clashes erupted between the two factions, culminating in Hamas taking control of the Gaza Strip, while Fatah maintained governance of the West Bank. This split led to a de facto political division that persists today.

The behavioural dynamics of the conflict reflect differing character traits and psychological postures. Hamas often exhibits aggressive and assertive behaviours, partially driven by its siege conditions, ideological rigidity, and desire to maintain control over Gaza through military force and propaganda. Fatah, meanwhile, demonstrates a more suppressed and bureaucratic character, attempting to maintain international legitimacy and institutional continuity in the West Bank despite internal criticism and charges of stagnation and corruption.

From a power perspective, Hamas commands control over Gaza through its military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, and maintains strong external support from actors like Iran and Qatar. Fatah, although weaker militarily, has the backing of the West and broader diplomatic recognition. This creates a paradoxical power imbalance: Hamas is stronger on the ground in Gaza, while Fatah holds international legitimacy and donor leverage.

The conflict environment further complicates mediation. Internally, Palestinians face poverty, political fatigue, human rights violations, and generational trauma. Externally, the region is shaped by the interests of Israel, Egypt, the U.S., and regional powers. These actors often take sides or promote solutions that benefit their strategic goals more than Palestinian unity. Additionally, the blockade of Gaza, limited mobility between territories, and media polarization deepen mistrust between ordinary citizens and leadership alike.

Reconciliation efforts, such as the Mecca Agreement (2007), Cairo talks (2011), and the 2017 Unity Government Agreement, have repeatedly failed due to a lack of enforcement, inconsistent political will, and interference from external actors. Both parties have accused each other of betrayal, using unity talks as political theatre rather than genuine steps toward healing.

My View of Sustainable Solutions: For a meaningful and lasting resolution, several sustainable strategies must be considered:

1. Inclusive Political Dialogue: Neutral third-party mediators, possibly from trusted regional organizations like the Arab League or non-aligned nations, should facilitate direct, inclusive dialogue between both parties, away from external pressures or power dynamics that have historically derailed talks.

2. Power-Sharing Mechanism: A transitional unity government representing both Hamas and Fatah, with rotating leadership and clear jurisdiction over shared ministries, could gradually rebuild trust and integrate fragmented institutions.

3. Reform of Political Structures: Holding transparent and inclusive elections across all Palestinian territories would give legitimacy to new leadership and reflect the current will of the people many of whom were not eligible to vote in the 2006 elections.

4. Grassroots and Civil Society Engagement: Initiatives led by civil society groups, youth movements, and women’s organizations can reduce reliance on hierarchical political solutions. These groups can act as bridges, rebuilding community cohesion and shared national identity from the ground up.

5. Transitional Justice and Accountability: Both parties must be held accountable for internal human rights abuses and suppression of dissent. An independent national body for reconciliation and justice could facilitate healing and document grievances for institutional reform.

Conclusion:

The Hamas–Fatah conflict represents more than a political rivalry; it embodies a deep-seated fracture within Palestinian society that has hindered national unity and weakened efforts toward broader peace. Through the lens of conflict analysis, it becomes evident that this divide is shaped by ideological differences, imbalanced power structures, and entrenched mistrust, all reinforced by external influences and historical grievances.

Understanding the behaviours at play, from aggressive dominance to suppressed cooperation, allows mediators to identify the emotional and psychological undercurrents that sustain the conflict. The environment is one where identity, legitimacy, and survival are constantly negotiated, leaving little room for compromise without trusted facilitation.

For sustainable resolution, a shift from reactive measures to proactive, relationship-centred dialogue is essential. Third-party mediation, community-based peacebuilding, and mechanisms for inclusive political representation can pave the way toward reconciliation. Though challenging, bridging this internal divide is not only vital for Palestinian self-determination but also for any credible advancement in the Israeli–Palestinian peace process.

References:

• Wikipedia. (2024) Fatah–Hamas conflict. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict (Accessed: 3 June 2025).
• Milton-Edwards, B. (2017) ‘The Hamas–Fatah conflict: shallow but wide’, Journal of Middle Eastern Politics, 19(2), pp. 134–150. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45289503 (Accessed: 3 June 2025).
• Elgindy, K. (2024) ‘Predictable in their failure: An analysis of mediation efforts to end the Hamas–Fatah conflict’, International Peacekeeping, 31(1), pp. 45–62. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13533312.2024.2338410 (Accessed: 3 June 2025).
• Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024) Gaza Strip. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/place/Gaza-Strip (Accessed: 6 June 2025).
• Fitch, A. and Schachter, J. (2024) ‘Inside the sprawling military zone Israel uses to control Gaza from within’, The Wall Street Journal, 19 November. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/netzarim-corridor-israel-military-base-gaza-c01ec561 (Accessed: 6 June 2025).
• Lee, P. (2024) ‘Israel’s finance minister says occupying Gaza is “possible and necessary” in wake of Hamas war’, New York Post, 26 November. Available at: https://nypost.com/2024/11/26/world-news/israels-finance-minister-says-occupying-gaza-is-possible-and-necessary-after-war/ (Accessed: 6 June 2025).