Hamas

Based on Wikipedia: Hamas

The Organization Israel Once Quietly Supported

Here's an irony that should make you pause: Hamas, the militant group that launched the devastating October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, was once discreetly supported by Israel itself. The reasoning? Israeli officials in the 1980s saw this Islamic movement as a useful counterweight to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO. They calculated that a fractured Palestinian political landscape would make it harder for Palestinians to achieve statehood.

That calculation aged poorly.

To understand how we got here, you need to understand what Hamas actually is, how it came to power, and what it says it wants—which turns out to be more complicated than most headlines suggest.

What's in a Name

The word "Hamas" is actually a clever Arabic acronym. It comes from "Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah," which translates to "Islamic Resistance Movement." But the acronym itself, HMS in Arabic letters, was deliberately chosen because it sounds like the Arabic word "hamas," meaning zeal, strength, or bravery. This kind of linguistic double meaning is common in political movements—it makes the name both descriptive and emotionally resonant.

The organization emerged in 1987, during what's called the First Intifada—the first major Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. But its roots go back further, to a charitable organization founded by a Palestinian Islamic scholar named Ahmed Yassin in 1973. That charity, called Mujama al-Islamiya, was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the influential Islamic political movement that originated in Egypt and has spawned offshoots across the Middle East.

A Different Kind of Resistance

Understanding Hamas requires understanding what made it different from the PLO. The Palestine Liberation Organization, led for decades by Yasser Arafat, was explicitly secular. It framed Palestinian nationalism in political rather than religious terms.

Hamas took a different approach. It wrapped Palestinian nationalism in Islamic religious language and ideology. This wasn't just marketing—it represented a genuinely different vision of what a Palestinian state should be and why it should exist.

There's another crucial difference worth noting. After Israel occupied Gaza in 1967, the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza—Hamas's precursor organization—refused to join the resistance boycott against Israel. They focused instead on building social institutions: mosques, schools, charitable organizations. This patient institution-building would later prove crucial to Hamas's political success.

The 2006 Election Shock

In January 2006, something happened that caught almost everyone off guard. Hamas won a decisive majority in Palestinian parliamentary elections.

How did a militant organization defeat the established Palestinian Authority? Two words: corruption and credibility.

The Palestinian Authority, dominated by the Fatah party, had developed a reputation for corruption after years in power. Hamas campaigned on promises of clean governance. They also argued that armed resistance was the only realistic path to ending Israeli occupation—a message that resonated with Palestinians who had seen little progress from years of negotiations.

The election results created an immediate crisis. The United States and European Union had designated Hamas as a terrorist organization and refused to work with them. Israel and the West imposed sanctions. The stage was set for conflict—not just between Hamas and Israel, but between Hamas and Fatah.

The Battle for Gaza

In June 2007, tensions between Hamas and Fatah exploded into open warfare. Over several days of intense fighting, Hamas forces defeated Fatah's security services in Gaza and seized complete control of the territory.

This created a bizarre political situation that persists today. The Palestinian territories were split in two. Hamas controlled Gaza, a tiny coastal strip roughly 25 miles long and 5 miles wide, home to over two million people. The Palestinian Authority, led by Fatah, controlled the West Bank, a larger territory separated from Gaza by Israel.

Israel and Egypt responded to Hamas's takeover by imposing a blockade on Gaza. This blockade has remained in place, with varying intensity, ever since. It severely restricts the movement of people and goods in and out of the territory, creating what many observers have called an open-air prison.

The Cycle of Violence

What followed was a grim pattern that repeated itself multiple times. Hamas and affiliated militant groups would launch rockets at Israeli cities. Israel would respond with military operations, including airstrikes and ground invasions. Ceasefires would eventually be brokered, hold for a while, then break down. Major conflicts erupted in 2008-09, 2012, 2014, and 2021.

Each round left Gaza more devastated. Infrastructure was destroyed. Civilian casualties mounted on both sides, though far more heavily on the Palestinian side. And each round seemed to harden positions rather than move anyone toward resolution.

October 7, 2023

Then came the attack that changed everything.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas militants breached the heavily fortified barrier between Gaza and Israel and launched coordinated attacks on nearby communities. Nearly 1,200 Israelis were killed, about two-thirds of them civilians. Approximately 250 people were taken hostage and brought back to Gaza.

Hamas said the attack was a response to Israel's continued occupation, the blockade of Gaza, expanding settlements in the West Bank, and what they described as threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem—one of Islam's holiest sites. There were also reports of sexual violence committed during the attack, which Hamas denied.

Israel's response was the largest military operation in Gaza's history. By the time a ceasefire took effect in January 2025, over 70,000 Palestinians had been killed, with a peer-reviewed study in The Lancet medical journal finding that about 59 percent were women, children, and elderly people.

The Leadership Question

The months following October 7 saw dramatic changes in Hamas's leadership—mostly through Israeli targeted killings.

In July 2024, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas's political bureau who had been living in exile, was assassinated in Tehran, Iran, where he had traveled for the inauguration of Iran's new president. Yahya Sinwar, who had planned the October 7 attacks and remained in Gaza, was elected to replace him.

Sinwar himself was killed by Israeli forces in October 2024 during what the military described as a chance encounter during a routine patrol in southern Gaza. His younger brother, Mohammed Sinwar—nicknamed "Shadow"—reportedly took over leadership in Gaza, though he too was killed by Israeli forces, with his death confirmed in June 2025.

The organization's military leadership has been similarly decimated. Mohammed Deif, Hamas's senior military commander, was killed in July 2024. Abu Obaida, the masked spokesman who became the public face of Hamas's armed wing, was killed in August 2025.

What Does Hamas Actually Want?

This is where things get genuinely complicated, and where honest analysis requires holding multiple ideas in tension.

Hamas's 1988 founding charter was a maximalist document. It claimed all of what had been British Mandatory Palestine—the territory that now includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza—as an Islamic endowment that could never be surrendered. The charter also contained language that was widely condemned as antisemitic.

But Hamas's stated positions have evolved significantly since 1988, in ways that matter but that don't fit neatly into either a "they've moderated" or "they haven't changed" narrative.

In 2017, Hamas released a new charter. This document removed the antisemitic language and explicitly stated that Hamas's struggle was with Zionists, not with Jews as a people. It also declared Hamas's willingness to accept a Palestinian state based on the borders that existed before the 1967 war—meaning the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Here's the crucial nuance: the 2017 charter accepted those borders without recognizing Israel's right to exist. Hamas leaders have consistently refused to officially recognize Israel, even while accepting territorial boundaries that implicitly acknowledge another entity on the other side of those boundaries.

The Hudna Question

To understand Hamas's position, you need to understand an Arabic concept called "hudna." A hudna is a long-term armistice or truce—not a permanent peace treaty, but a binding agreement to cease hostilities for an extended period.

Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel a hudna in exchange for a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. Ahmed Yassin, Hamas's founder, initially proposed ten years. He later suggested the truce could be extended to 30, 40, or even 100 years.

In 2006, newly elected Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh sent messages to both U.S. President George W. Bush and Israeli leaders proposing a 50-year armistice with automatic renewal. Neither responded.

Some scholars argue this effectively amounts to a two-state solution with different terminology. A Hamas finance minister reportedly said around 2018 that "a long-term ceasefire as understood by Hamas and a two-state settlement are the same."

Others are more skeptical. They note that Hamas has never abandoned its claim to all of historic Palestine—it's just willing to accept partial territory as an interim step. Under this reading, a hudna would be a strategic pause, not a genuine acceptance of Israel's permanent existence.

A Hamas official once compared their position to the Irish Republican Army's relationship with the United Kingdom: willing to accept a permanent armistice without recognizing British sovereignty over Northern Ireland.

The Practical Politics

Hamas's position also reflects a theological argument about what kind of agreements Islamic law permits. Under traditional Islamic jurisprudence, a hudna is a legitimate form of agreement with binding obligations. Hamas leaders argue that a Western-style peace treaty would amount to surrender and permanent recognition of what they view as an illegitimate seizure of Islamic land. A hudna, by contrast, allows for an extended period of peace while preserving the theoretical claim.

This distinction may seem like hair-splitting to Western observers. But it matters enormously to Hamas's ability to maintain legitimacy with its base. An organization built on Islamic resistance cannot simply declare that resistance over without facing accusations of betrayal.

The International Dimension

Hamas doesn't operate in isolation. Understanding its foreign relationships helps explain its durability and its decision-making.

Iran has been Hamas's most important external backer, providing funding, weapons, and training. This relationship has sometimes been strained—Hamas broke with Iran's ally, the Assad regime in Syria, during the Syrian civil war—but it has proven durable. After Yahya Sinwar's election as Hamas leader in 2024, officials cited his "strong connections with Iran and the Axis of Resistance" as a factor.

The "Axis of Resistance" refers to an informal coalition of Iranian-aligned groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthi movement in Yemen. This network provides Hamas with strategic depth that a small organization in a blockaded territory couldn't achieve on its own.

Qatar has provided crucial financial support, including funding for Gaza's government operations. Turkey and Egypt have served as intermediaries at various times. These relationships have been complicated by regional politics—the Arab Spring, for instance, disrupted several of Hamas's key relationships.

The Terror Designation

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and several other countries. This designation has significant practical effects: it freezes assets, criminalizes material support, and effectively bars diplomatic contact.

It's worth noting that this designation is not universal. Two separate motions at the United Nations to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization—in 2018 and 2023—failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority.

The distinction between "terrorist organization" and "legitimate resistance movement" often tracks with broader political positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those who view Israeli occupation as the primary problem tend to see Hamas as a symptom; those who view Palestinian violence as the primary problem tend to see Hamas as a cause.

Human Rights Concerns

Hamas's rule over Gaza has drawn criticism from human rights organizations on multiple grounds.

The organization has been accused of suppressing political opposition, restricting press freedom, and using torture against detainees. During conflicts with Israel, Hamas has been criticized for launching rockets from civilian areas and for preventing civilians from evacuating. The use of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, particularly during the 1990s and early 2000s, killed hundreds of people.

Hamas's treatment of hostages taken during the October 7 attack has also been condemned, with released hostages describing harsh conditions and abuse.

These criticisms exist alongside criticisms of Israeli actions—the blockade of Gaza, the high civilian death toll in military operations, conditions in the occupied territories. The question of proportionality and moral equivalence between the two sides is hotly contested and beyond the scope of this article to resolve.

Where Things Stand

As of the January 2025 ceasefire, Hamas as an organization has been severely weakened but not destroyed. Its top leadership has been systematically killed. Its military infrastructure in Gaza has been devastated. The territory it governed lies in ruins.

Yet the conditions that gave rise to Hamas—Israeli occupation, Palestinian statelessness, the blockade of Gaza—remain. The question facing everyone involved is whether the catastrophic violence of 2023-2025 has created any new possibilities for resolution, or whether it has simply reset the clock on the next cycle.

History suggests pessimism. But history is also full of conflicts that seemed intractable until suddenly they weren't. The question is what it would take to move from endless cycles of violence to something else—and whether any of the parties involved are capable of imagining, let alone accepting, what that something else might be.