Hamas = ISIS. Really?

Immediately after the October 7 massacre, IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari declared that “Hamas is ISIS.” Hagari expressed the legitimacy that Israel sought in order to wage an all-out war against Hamas. The horrific videos of the massacre dominated screens in Israel and around the world, which stood by Israel. Indeed, the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli citizens, men, women, children and elderly, are no less than crimes against humanity, reminiscent of the ISIS atrocities against all sects and minorities in Arab countries that were perceived by them as infidels. ISIS’s goal was to sow fear in hearts, defeat its enemies, and establish the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.”

The Islamic State did not last long. A broad coalition of countries led by the United States mercilessly bombed ISIS-controlled areas until its defeat. No one counted the number of civilians killed in these bombings, as the elimination of ISIS justified them even at the cost of innocent victims. This is how Israel hoped the world would view its war against Hamas, and it embarked on a massive bombing campaign that led to the destruction of Gaza and enormous casualties, including children and women.

However, unlike the war against ISIS, in Gaza the world counted every casualty, every bombed home, and every destroyed hospital. The fact that Hamas transformed all of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure into a military fortress, digging itself in beneath the entire area, didn’t really concern the world. Israel lost all international credit and legitimacy. The International Court of Justice in the Hague is still investigating suspicions of genocide, and the International Criminal Court is investigating the possibility of putting the Prime Minister and Defense Minister on trial for suspected war crimes. Despite Hamas being a terrorist organization that committed blatant violations of fundamental human rights, in the world’s eyes it was transformed from a group associated with ISIS to a legitimate “resistance” organization against the Israeli occupation.

Only recently, Hagari appeared in a series of television interviews, an unusual step, and declared that “Hamas is an idea – and it cannot be destroyed.” Hagari’s statement fell like a bolt of lightning because suddenly, it seemed, Hamas was no longer ISIS. Although the terrorist organization ISIS was destroyed, the terrorist organization Hamas cannot be destroyed. Hagari did not explain the difference between the ‘idea’ of ISIS and the ‘idea’ of Hamas, and if he had tried to do so, he would have found it difficult to find differences. Hamas’s crimes are ISIS’s crimes, the same idea and the same method.

Yet what is the difference between them? ISIS did not receive absolute support from the peoples among which it operated, while Hamas is deeply rooted in the Palestinian people. Despite all the casualties it has brought on them, Hamas continues to receive popular backing. The ‘idea’ of Hamas enjoys broad support compared to the ‘idea’ of ISIS. Primarily, the idea of ISIS threatened the US, being the continuation of Al-Qaeda, which reminded every American of September 2001.

Even today, nine months after the October 7th massacre, the refusal to deal with Gaza’s future leads many Israelis to accept that Hamas will remain in charge there because no governmental alternative exists. The Israeli consensus that connects both Right and Left is that the Palestinians are not partners for peace, that the Palestinian question is ‘unsolvable,’ and all that remains is to manage it. However, October 7th proved that this conflict cannot be managed, cannot be lived with. It has exploded in our faces with all its ugliness.

Hamas cannot be destroyed by air strikes, and the Israeli army is therefore required to change its thinking to avoid a Sisyphean war. Initially, Hagari’s position was stated behind closed doors. Apparently, it fell on deaf ears, so that he was forced to bring matters into the open, thus starting a broad public discussion on the burning issue, ‘What is the Israeli plan for Gaza?’

The response of Netanyahu was quick and decisive: “The government has decided on the destruction of the military and ruling capabilities of Hamas,” and to this Hagari responded that “the IDF is committed to achieving the war objectives as defined by the Cabinet.” If this is the case, why did Hagari need to say in his broadcast that the idea of destroying Hamas amounts to “throwing sand in the public’s eyes”? Although Hagari’s words suggest that the army is trying to align with the saying “Israel is a country with an army, not an army with a country,” nevertheless, the army is kicking with all its might to force the government to come up with a coherent plan on who will replace Hamas in power. Without such a plan, military achievements will be in vain.

While Hagari was being interviewed, a parallel conference was held under the title “Time of Decision,” attended by hundreds of reserve officers from the right wing and the settlers. It highlighted positions opposite to that of Hagari. The conference’s guest of honor was Major General (res.) Yiftach Ron-Tal, who called for the decisive defeat of Hamas. His plan for the day after Hamas is “to impose a military government to prevent a void, and through it, it will be possible to dismantle Hamas’s governing capabilities.”

In addition to these two positions, another popular position among left-wing voters suggests declaring “we’ve won,” withdrawing from Gaza, and leaving it in ruins under Sinwar’s control. This is also proposed by Thomas Friedman in a New York Times article, and it appears that his position is accepted by the Tel Aviv protesters against Netanyahu. From their perspective, the issue of the hostages is top priority, and they see Netanyahu as the real threat to Israel’s existence, more so than Sinwar and Nasrallah combined.

It is interesting to note Netanyahu’s position. He laid out his doctrine in a lengthy interview for Israel Channel 14’s “Patriots” program on June 23. He was asked about his plan for the day after, and this was his response: “It is absolutely clear that there will be military control for the foreseeable future, there is no other way… But we would also like to create a civil administration with external backing to manage the humanitarian aid and civilian management of Gaza…. Now the army is coming up with a different idea, which I will not elaborate on, to undertake this process in a gradual manner, and I think this is positive. In the end, there needs to be military disarmament in Gaza, and a civil administration needs to be established.”

When Netanyahu was explicitly asked about the possibility of putting settlers in Gaza, he answered briefly and clearly, “The settlement issue is not realistic.” Netanyahu, like Netanyahu, distances himself from the messianic settlers like Smotrich and Ben Gvir. At the same time, he does not neglect his right-wing base when he says that the army will not withdraw from Gaza and will maintain security control. On the other hand, Netanyahu continues his cooperation with the army and with Defense Minister Yoav Galant, who are offering him “positive alternatives” that may include a Palestinian civilian component to manage Gaza’s civil affairs. There is a lively, stormy, and sometimes hysterical discussion between those who want to leave Gaza immediately, those who want to establish military rule, and those who want a kind of Palestinian rule under Israeli security auspices. Yet the debaters are careful not to touch on the cardinal question: what will be the future of Gaza? For two decades, a solid consensus has been created in Israeli public opinion that Gaza is not an Israeli problem, and that Israel does not want to conquer Gaza, rule it, or be responsible for its residents. This is the consensus that underlay Israel’s previous “conception” of Gaza. And since Israel did not want Gaza, it welcomed Sinwar.

Even today, after the October 7th massacre, the refusal to deal with Gaza’s future leads many Israelis to accept that Hamas will remain in control because there is no governmental alternative. To repeat what Hagari said, the idea of eliminating Hamas is nothing but “throwing sand in the public’s eyes.”

The Israeli consensus that connects both Right and Left, among Netanyahu, Gantz, Bennett, and Lapid, is that the Palestinians are not partners for peace, that the Palestinian question is “unsolvable,” and all that remains is to manage it. However, October 7th proved that this conflict cannot be managed or lived with. It exploded in our faces in all its ugliness. So much so that most of the Israeli public lives uncertain about its future. The fall of Netanyahu and his delusional government may somewhat alleviate the current sense of suffocation, but it will not solve our existential problems.

Israeli society needs to define for itself how it wants to live with the Palestinians. It needs to distance itself from military concepts on the Right, Center, and Left, as well as from generals like Gantz, Eisenkot, and Yair Golan. They see the Palestinian question as a security problem, just like Rabin before them, who was a partner in the Oslo Accords that bypassed Palestinian independence and sovereignty by establishing a regime that will “manage” the Palestinian issue for Israel. Oslo was fertile ground for the growth of Hamas.

All those who oppose the constitutional coup, the messianists, the ultra-Orthodox, and the fascists must act to promote the growth of a democratic, authentic Palestinian force that will take the lead among its people and gain their support. This force does not exist today, and the task seems very distant. But what is currently being offered is years of security control and civil administration in Gaza. That is a recipe for disaster.

The protest movement and supporters of democracy must forge ties with every democratic Palestinian who opposes both the rule of Abu Mazen and the rule of Sinwar, in order to reach a political solution based on equality between the two peoples. This is a long-term investment, but it is the only way to solve the conflict instead of managing it until the next bloodbath.