Introduction
In light of recent developments, where the United States has announced the mobilization of an aircraft carrier strike group to the eastern Mediterranean and additional support for Israel in its newly declared war against Hamas, the complexities of eliminating the group have once again come to the forefront. The Israeli government, facing an "unprecedented terrorist assault," has responded with intensive airstrikes on Gaza, leading to a mounting death toll and injuries on both sides. This escalation has also seen its ripple effect grow, drawing other regional actors like Hezbollah into the conflict. The situation has not only amplified the devastating human cost but has also presented renewed practical difficulties in disarming or dismantling Hamas.
Founded in 1987, Hamas has evolved into a multi-faceted organization deeply embedded in the Palestinian territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip. Its structure comprises both political and military wings, making it an entity that can govern and participate in democratic processes, while also executing militant activities. The newly declared war and heavy bombardment on Gaza demonstrate that despite ongoing counter-terrorism efforts, eradicating Hamas is far from straightforward. The group has deep roots in Palestinian society, providing social services and standing as a symbol of resistance for some, which has complicated previous efforts to weaken or neutralize it.
The ideological underpinnings of Hamas, rooted in a form of Islamic nationalism, serve not only as a source of internal cohesion but also as a powerful recruitment tool. This makes ideological counter-measures challenging, particularly in a situation where intense conflict may strengthen the resolve of existing members and attract new ones. The geopolitical landscape adds yet another layer of complexity. Regional alliances and international legal frameworks pose substantial challenges, and the current U.S. involvement and the broader international reaction will undeniably influence how the conflict unfolds and what opportunities or constraints emerge for the elimination of Hamas.
As tensions escalate and regional actors are increasingly drawn into the conflict, I’d like to explore the various dimensions of the practical problems of eliminating Hamas. Amidst the alarming rise in casualties and a volatile geopolitical landscape, a nuanced understanding of these challenges is more crucial than ever. We aim to dissect why past and current approaches to counter Hamas have faced limited success and examine the multi-faceted complexities—ranging from organizational structure to ideology to geopolitics—that future initiatives must consider.
It’s a problem I’ve been thinking about since my encounters with the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) at San Francisco State during the first Intifada in 1987.
In May 1988, five years before the start of the Oslo Accords, Jewish students sat at a table underneath a banner with the phrase “Peace Now” in large fonts both in English and Hebrew. A dove was painted in the middle of the two slogans, and on the table were small Israeli and Palestinian flags.
Those in the now-disbanded Jewish Student Action Committee at SF State urged Palestinian students to sign their version of a peace treaty to send to Israeli and Palestinian leaders. The treaty was to act as a demonstration of peace on campus.
“We’ve worked out our differences, why can’t you?” JSAC Chief Executive Alex Horowitz said while tabling in 1988.
Things were more hopeful after the Oslo accords. Then the devolution from the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin through today. What both sides are doing has not been working, cannot work, and will only continue the violence visited on the innocent in the name of “winning.” As many of you know, I come at these types of problems from a systems vantage point; one that seeks to acknowledge our limitations around achieving specific outcomes in any highly complex system.
Structural Complexity of Hamas
Hamas presents a unique challenge for any counter-terrorism effort because of its multifaceted nature. Often, organizations involved in terrorism or militancy operate separately from any political establishment; however, this is not the case for Hamas. The group consists of two primary wings: the political and the military. The political wing is responsible for governance, diplomacy, and social welfare, among other things. In contrast, the military wing, known as the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, focuses on armed resistance, including activities like rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and other militant operations. This duality makes it difficult to target the group without risking broader socio-political ramifications. For instance, while targeting the military wing might yield short-term tactical advantages, it could result in unintended consequences like the radicalization of the local populace who depend on the group's social services.
Furthermore, the organizational structure of Hamas is highly decentralized. Unlike more traditional military entities, which have a hierarchical chain of command, Hamas operates in a cell-like fashion. Individual cells often have a degree of autonomy and can carry out operations independently. This decentralization allows the group to continue its activities even when one part of the organization is compromised. For counter-terrorism efforts, this means that taking out one cell or even a prominent leader does not necessarily incapacitate the entire organization.
Another dimension to consider is the deep community integration that Hamas has achieved over the years. The group provides social services like education, healthcare, and financial assistance, winning the hearts and minds of the Palestinian population in the areas it controls. This community support acts as a buffer against external attempts to eliminate the group. Many Palestinians, even those who may disagree with the group's military activities, rely on these services and view Hamas as a more trustworthy alternative to corrupt or ineffective governments.
Beyond this, the geographical locations where Hamas operates also add to the complexity. With its strongholds in densely populated areas like the Gaza Strip, military operations to root out the group face significant challenges. Collateral damage, including civilian casualties, is almost inevitable in such scenarios, creating ethical dilemmas and further complicating international support for counter-terrorism operations. The recent escalation involving heavy bombardments has drawn attention to this issue, as high civilian casualties lead to increased international scrutiny and calls for restraint.
The group's funding and supply chains are intricate and often opaque. Funds and resources come through a range of channels, including state sponsors, diaspora donations, and even criminal activities. This diversified support system makes it difficult to crippate the group financially. As seen in the current conflict, where external actors like the United States are providing support to Israel, similar aid and resupply routes exist for Hamas, albeit less publicly acknowledged.
Ideological Foundations
Hamas was originally established in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Sunni Islamist organization. The founding charter of Hamas articulates a form of Islamic nationalism with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in Palestine, which includes present-day Israel. This ideological vision is deeply entrenched in the group's activities and serves as the cornerstone for its resistance against Israel. The ideological goals are not only theological but also deeply political, intricately tied to the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given its ideological roots, Hamas views its struggle as both a religious and nationalist duty, making it resistant to any efforts aimed at its dissolution that don't address these core issues.
″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam invalidates it, just as it invalidated others before it.″
Preamble to the 1988 Hamas Charter
Understanding the ideological foundation of Hamas is crucial for comprehending its recruitment strategies and year over year increasing support from the average Palestinian.. Its religious-nationalist rhetoric, the perceived struggle against occupation, and its focus on social justice issues resonate with various segments of Palestinian society. Over the years, it has also built a network of social institutions like schools, mosques, and healthcare centers, where its ideological teachings are disseminated. Such a strategy ensures a steady stream of new recruits who are deeply committed to the group's objectives. Hamas also employs sophisticated propaganda techniques, leveraging media and online platforms to further its narrative and attract supporters not just from Palestine but also from the broader Muslim world.
However, counter-propaganda efforts have had varying degrees of success. Israel and its allies have made significant investments in public relations campaigns to counter the messages propagated by Hamas. These campaigns often focus on highlighting the group's involvement in terrorist activities, its use of civilian areas for military purposes, and its alleged human rights abuses. While these efforts have been somewhat successful in shaping international opinion, they have had limited impact in altering the ground realities or diminishing local support for Hamas.
Additionally, regional actors and international organizations have attempted to dilute the group's ideological appeal through initiatives aimed at peacebuilding, education, and even counter-extremism programs. While these initiatives are well-intentioned, they often fail to address the underlying political and social grievances that give rise to groups like Hamas in the first place. Therefore, these programs have achieved only limited success in curbing the group's ideological influence.
In the current context, where conflict has escalated dramatically in these last few days, the ideological fervor surrounding Hamas is likely to intensify. Instances of active conflict often serve to galvanize supporters, solidifying the ideological foundations and making it even more challenging to de-radicalize its members or supporters. Recent actions by external actors, like the U.S. military support for Israel, may also inadvertently strengthen the group's ideological narrative of resistance against an overwhelmingly powerful foe, further complicating efforts to weaken the group ideologically.
Geopolitical Challenges
The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is a complex web of alliances, rivalries, and interests, which has a significant bearing on the struggle against Hamas. Various countries in the region have nuanced stances toward the group, influencing its resilience and complicating efforts to eliminate it. Countries like Iran and Qatar have been reported to provide varying degrees of financial and material support to Hamas. Iran, in particular, has been a crucial supporter, providing not just funds but also military training and weaponry. On the other hand, countries like Egypt and Jordan, which have formal peace treaties with Israel, are generally opposed to the group, although their ability to actively counter Hamas is limited by political considerations and public opinion.
The political ramifications of taking strong actions against Hamas extend far beyond the immediate theater of conflict. Countries supporting or opposing Hamas are often part of larger political and military alliances. For instance, American military support for Israel, as recently highlighted by the move to send an aircraft carrier strike group to the eastern Mediterranean, can have repercussions on U.S. relations with other countries in the Middle East and could potentially influence American interests in other geopolitical hotspots. The involvement of Hezbollah in the latest conflict, citing solidarity with Hamas, exemplifies how actions against the group can lead to broader regional escalations.
Legal constraints add another layer of complexity to the issue. International laws, including the rules of armed conflict and human rights laws, impose limitations on what can be done to counter groups like Hamas. The group’s tactic of operating within densely populated civilian areas poses a significant challenge to complying with international laws that protect civilians. The high number of civilian casualties in the recent conflict has already led to calls for investigations into potential war crimes, further complicating international involvement and support for counter-terrorism operations against Hamas.
Moreover, international bodies like the United Nations often find themselves hamstrung by geopolitical considerations. Actions like sanctions or military intervention require broad international consensus, which is hard to achieve given the varied interests of powerful member states. Countries that hold veto power in the United Nations Security Council, such as the United States and Russia, have their own geopolitical considerations, which influences the body's ability to take cohesive action.
If all that wasn’t enough to consider, there is the ever-present concern of setting geopolitical precedents. The methodology and legal frameworks employed to counter or eliminate Hamas could serve as a precedent for other conflicts, affecting how international law is interpreted and applied. This creates a cautious approach and often delays decisive actions that could bring a quicker end to hostilities, but might set controversial precedents for future conflicts.
The geopolitical landscape adds multiple layers of complexity to the task of eliminating Hamas. Regional support and opposition, political ramifications on a global scale, legal constraints, and the influence of international bodies all serve to make this not just a military challenge but a highly complex geopolitical puzzle. Understanding these nuances is essential for developing any strategy aimed at countering Hamas effectively.
Operational Difficulties
Conventional military actions against a group like Hamas come with their own set of tactical limitations. Hamas employs asymmetric warfare techniques that are tailored to negate the technological and numerical advantages of a conventional army. The use of tunnels, rocket attacks, and hit-and-run tactics are all designed to offset the group's lack of heavy artillery and airpower. These tactics make it extremely challenging for a conventional military to fully eliminate the group without incurring substantial costs—both in terms of manpower and resources.
Counter-intelligence efforts face similar challenges. Penetrating the internal structure of Hamas to gather actionable intelligence is a complex undertaking. Given its decentralized structure, infiltrating one cell or faction does not necessarily provide insights into the operations or plans of other segments of the organization. Moreover, the group has become increasingly sophisticated in its counter-intelligence measures. Over the years, it has caught and executed multiple informants, creating a climate of fear and suspicion that acts as a deterrent against potential informants from within.
Beyond the physical risks, intelligence agencies must also contend with encrypted communications and other technological and non-technological counter-measures employed by Hamas. Advances in commercially available encryption technologies have made it increasingly difficult for intelligence agencies to intercept and decipher communications between Hamas operatives. The digital realm has added another layer of complexity to intelligence-gathering efforts, as it is also used by the group for recruitment, propaganda, and even remote coordination of attacks. In the old school realm, Hamas has taken to never using modern communication devices in their planning efforts, preferring instead old school meetings.
Another operational difficulty relates to actionable intelligence and the timeliness of its use. Given the rapidly evolving nature of conflict, information gathered about potential targets or planned attacks quickly becomes outdated. The speed with which military actions need to be approved and executed to capitalize on this intelligence often comes into conflict with the slower, more deliberative pace of political decision-making processes. This mismatch can render high-quality intelligence useless, especially if not acted upon promptly.
The operational difficulties are exacerbated by the international constraints discussed earlier. The need to adhere to international law while carrying out military operations often limits the tactics and weaponry that can be employed. For example, the use of certain types of munitions may be restricted, and target selection must undergo rigorous legal review to minimize civilian casualties, often slowing down the operational tempo and giving Hamas time to adapt and respond.
Operational difficulties of countering or eliminating Hamas are manifold. From the tactical limitations of conventional military actions to the complexities of counter-intelligence, these challenges make it exceedingly difficult to neutralize the group effectively. These operational difficulties are not standalone issues but are intricately tied to the structural, ideological, and geopolitical challenges previously discussed, making the task of eliminating Hamas a multi-faceted and highly complex endeavor.
Unintended Consequences of the Elimination of Hamas
Eliminating a group as deeply entrenched as Hamas would undoubtedly create a significant power vacuum in the Palestinian territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip. The absence of a strong governing body could lead to instability, opening up opportunities for even more radical elements to take control. Given the political and ideological diversity of Palestinian society, there is no guarantee that the power vacuum would be filled by more moderate forces. It's conceivable that groups with even more extremist views or affiliations to global terrorist networks could take advantage of the instability to establish a foothold, further exacerbating regional tensions.
One of the primary concerns related to the potential elimination of Hamas is the escalation of conflict and radicalization among Palestinians and within the broader Muslim world. The perception that an indigenous resistance group was eliminated could galvanize public opinion and inspire increased support for more extreme ideologies. In other words, the removal of Hamas may inadvertently legitimize and amplify the group's narrative of resistance, perpetuating a cycle of radicalization that could give rise to successor groups more extreme than Hamas itself.
The phenomenon of "martyrdom" is also worth noting here. In the event of its leadership being killed or captured, Hamas may seek to portray itself as a martyr in the struggle against oppression. This could resonate not just locally but also globally, mobilizing support and potentially resulting in a new wave of radicalization and recruitment for successor organizations. The group's propaganda machinery, which is already adept at shaping narratives, could go into overdrive to ensure that its ideological goals live on even if the organization itself is dismantled.
Furthermore, the elimination of Hamas could have far-reaching consequences beyond Palestine. Given the group's complex relationship with various state and non-state actors across the region, its removal could upset delicate balances of power and trigger unintended consequences. As seen with other extremist groups that have been eliminated or weakened, the disappearance of a unifying enemy can sometimes lead to infighting among those who were allied against it, thereby creating new conflicts and alliances that are difficult to predict.
The issue of justice and reconciliation should not be overlooked. A military defeat of Hamas without addressing the underlying issues that gave rise to the group in the first place is unlikely to result in a lasting peace. Long-term stability would require not just the elimination of the group but also meaningful steps toward resolving the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which itself is a monumental challenge fraught with complexities.
Any hypothetical elimination of Hamas would present its own set of challenges and consequences. From the creation of a power vacuum that could be filled by even more radical elements to the risk of escalating conflict and radicalization, the removal of Hamas is not an end in itself but would likely be the beginning of a new, and possibly more complicated, phase in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Conclusions
After thoroughly examining the structural complexities, ideological foundations, geopolitical challenges, operational difficulties, and potential consequences of eliminating Hamas, it becomes clear that a purely military solution is not only ineffective but will likely simply exacerbate the conflict further. While it's essential to counter the violence and threats posed by Hamas, relying solely on military might has done little more than perpetuate a legacy of violence and suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians. A radical shift in strategy seems both wise and necessary. One that transcends military tactics and addresses the underlying issues fueling this enduring conflict.
Given the history of the conflict and the deeply rooted animosities, proposing an approach led by love and understanding may sound idealistic. However, it's precisely in these entrenched conflicts where radical ideas could bring about radical change. One path Israel could consider is embracing the aspirations of Palestinian self-determination in a meaningful way. The occupation has not been a successful strategy for peace but rather has intensified resentment and violence. By taking groundbreaking steps towards acknowledging and supporting the Palestinian right to self-governance, Israel could shift the narrative and dynamics of the conflict.
Drawing inspiration from the imaginative realm, Tom Clancy once proposed turning Jerusalem, a city sacred to three major religions, into an International City guarded by the Swiss Guard. While the practicality of such a solution is open to debate, its underlying principle of shared stewardship and international involvement could serve as a starting point for more creative, cooperative approaches to peacekeeping. Not only could this idea galvanize international support, but it might also serve to defuse religious and territorial tensions that have long fueled hostilities.
Taking such a transformative approach would likely evoke global sympathy and could act as a catalyst for deescalation. Of course, such a change cannot be one-sided and would require significant shifts from Palestinian leadership as well. But as the more powerful actor, Israel has the unique capacity to take the first, bold step toward a new future. By meeting violence and extremism with actions rooted in justice and the promotion of mutual human dignity, Israel could radically change the trajectory of this decades-long conflict.
The intractable nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, exemplified by the challenges of dealing with Hamas, calls for a drastic rethinking of traditional approaches. While it's important to address the immediate threats posed by extremist groups, a long-term solution requires addressing the root causes that give rise to such extremism. An approach that combines security concerns with a genuine effort to resolve the underlying conflict through shared stewardship and international cooperation could offer a path to a more stable, peaceful future for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Humanity’s goal should not just be a ceasefire or a fragile truce, but a sustainable peace that addresses the aspirations and grievances of both sides. Only by daring to think differently can we hope to break the cycle of violence and lay the foundations for lasting peace.