What is Hamas? Understanding the Islamist Group in Gaza

Hamas, short for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, which translates to “Islamic Resistance Movement,” is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist organization. Originating in 1987, early in the First Intifada, Hamas has become a central player in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For nearly two decades, it has governed the Gaza Strip, a densely populated territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Hamas is vehemently opposed to the existence of Israel, viewing it as an occupying force in Palestine. This stance is rooted in its foundational ideology, which seeks to establish an Islamic state in historic Palestine.

In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing conflict, Hamas launched a large-scale attack on southern Israel in October 2023. This operation resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people in Israel and the capture of over 200 hostages who were taken back to Gaza. Israel responded by declaring war with the stated aim of dismantling Hamas. The ensuing conflict has been devastating, resulting in a significant humanitarian crisis in Gaza and, according to Palestinian officials in Gaza, tragically leading to the deaths of more than forty thousand people by October 2024.

Hamas’s actions and ideology have led to its designation as a terrorist organization by numerous countries, including the United States, Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. However, it is important to note that some nations differentiate between Hamas’s political and military wings, proscribing only the latter. Despite international condemnation, Hamas receives substantial support from various actors in the Middle East, most notably Iran. Since the outbreak of the recent conflict, the United States has reaffirmed its commitment to Israel’s security, pledging billions of dollars in military aid and maintaining its position as Israel’s primary arms supplier.

Further Reading:

Hamas is deeply embedded within a regional network of anti-Israel groups known as the “axis of resistance,” primarily orchestrated and supported by Iran. This network includes other militant organizations such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias operating in Iraq and Syria. Qatar also plays a significant role, hosting Hamas’s political bureau and providing substantial financial support, reportedly with the awareness and tacit approval of the Israeli government, at least prior to the current conflict. These intricate regional alliances contribute to concerns that the Israel-Hamas war could escalate into a broader, more destabilizing regional conflict.

In contrast to Hamas, Fatah, the dominant faction within the Palestinian Authority (PA) which governs the West Bank, has officially disavowed violence as a political tool. However, this commitment has been inconsistently applied, particularly during periods of heightened tensions with Israel. This fundamental divergence in approach, coupled with Hamas’s unwavering hostility towards Israel, significantly hampered prospects for stability in Gaza even before the current war, which has now plunged the territory into a deeper state of crisis.

The Genesis of Hamas: Tracing its Origins

The foundation of Hamas can be attributed to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a Palestinian cleric who became actively involved in local branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. Prior to his activism, Yassin dedicated his life to Islamic scholarship in Cairo. Returning to the Palestinian territories, he began preaching and engaging in charitable activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip starting in the late 1960s. This period coincided with Israel’s occupation of these territories following the 1967 Six-Day War.

The formal establishment of Hamas as the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza occurred in December 1987, coinciding with the eruption of the First Intifada. This Palestinian uprising was a direct response to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Hamas emerged with the initial objective of mobilizing violence against Israelis. This strategy was partly aimed at regaining popular support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which had seen a decline in political influence relative to Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). PIJ, an Iran-backed group based in Gaza, had already begun carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel, positioning itself as a more militant alternative.

Hamas’s Foundational Charter and Evolving Political Stance

Hamas solidified its ideological and political platform with the publication of its charter in 1988. This document was overtly antisemitic, calling for the murder of Jews and the complete destruction of the state of Israel. It envisioned the establishment of an Islamic society in its place, encompassing all of historic Palestine. This original charter framed the conflict in stark religious terms and left little room for negotiation or compromise with Israel.

In what was widely interpreted as an attempt to moderate its public image, Hamas released a revised policy document in 2017. This new document removed the explicit calls for the killing of Jews. However, it notably stopped short of recognizing Israel’s right to exist. The revised charter did suggest a potential shift in Hamas’s territorial ambitions, hinting at the possibility of accepting a future Palestinian state confined to the borders preceding the Six-Day War – the internationally recognized borders of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, even this revised stance was conditional, stating that any such agreement would depend on “national consensus,” leaving considerable ambiguity about Hamas’s long-term territorial goals.

Further Reading:

A significant turning point in Hamas’s operational tactics was the introduction of suicide bombings in April 1993. This marked a dangerous escalation in the conflict and occurred just months before the signing of the Oslo Accords between Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The Oslo Accords were a landmark agreement that established limited Palestinian self-governance in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip under the newly formed Palestinian Authority (PA). Hamas vehemently condemned the Oslo Accords, rejecting both the PLO’s and Israel’s mutual recognition, which was formalized in letters exchanged by Arafat and Rabin shortly before the accords were signed.

The United States officially designated Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997, reflecting growing international concern over its violent methods and rejection of the peace process. Hamas played a prominent role in leading violent resistance during the Second Intifada in the early 2000s. While PIJ and Fatah’s Tanzim militia also participated in attacks against Israelis, Hamas’s involvement solidified its reputation as a leading force in the armed conflict against Israel.

Hamas Leadership: Structure and Key Figures

Hamas operates with a complex leadership structure comprising various bodies responsible for political, military, and social functions. Overall policy direction is determined by a consultative body, commonly referred to as the politburo, which primarily operates outside of the Palestinian territories. Local committees are responsible for managing day-to-day issues within Gaza and the West Bank, demonstrating a decentralized approach to governance and operations.

Since its inception in the late 1980s, Israel has consistently targeted Hamas leaders through assassination operations. This strategy has aimed to disrupt Hamas’s command structure and operational capabilities. In 2004, Israeli forces assassinated Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, a significant blow to the organization. The ongoing war in Gaza has further destabilized Hamas’s leadership, with numerous high-ranking members reportedly killed in Israeli strikes. Among those purportedly killed are Ismail Haniyeh, who had served as Hamas’s political chief since 2017, reportedly in a suspected Israeli bombing in Tehran in July 2024, and Mohammed Deif, Hamas’s elusive military leader, in a strike in Khan Younis in southern Gaza. However, reports of Haniyeh’s death have been refuted by Hamas sources and remain unconfirmed.

In October 2024, reports emerged of an Israeli strike that allegedly killed Yahya Sinwar, who had succeeded Haniyeh as political chief. Sinwar was believed to be a key strategist behind the October 7 attack, alongside Deif and Issa. Military analysts suggested that Sinwar’s purported killing would represent a major symbolic and operational victory for Israel. Sinwar had a long history with Hamas’s military wing and had previously spent twenty-two years in Israeli prison for orchestrating the killing of two Israeli soldiers in 1988. He was released in 2011 as part of a prisoner exchange deal with Israel.

Following reports of Sinwar’s death, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a statement describing Yahya Sinwar as a “vicious and unrepentant terrorist responsible for the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.” Blinken asserted, “The world is a better place with him gone.” However, like Haniyeh’s death, reports of Sinwar’s death also appear to be inaccurate. As of late 2024, Yahya Sinwar remains the leader of Hamas in Gaza.

Current prominent figures within Hamas leadership include Issam al-Da’alis, who serves as the de facto prime minister in Gaza since 2021 and was previously an advisor to Haniyeh. Khaled Meshaal, a veteran Hamas leader, is often mentioned as a potential successor to Haniyeh in a political leadership role. Meshaal headed Hamas’s political bureau in exile from 2004 to 2017 before handing over the position to Haniyeh. Khalil al-Hayya, who has been a key figure in Hamas’s negotiations with Israel mediated by Qatar, is also seen as a possible candidate for future leadership.

Hamas’s political bureau established a base in Qatar after a falling out with Syria, its previous host, following the participation of Palestinian refugees in the 2011 uprising that preceded the Syrian Civil War. Some senior Hamas officials are also reported to operate from offices in Turkey, further illustrating the geographically dispersed nature of its leadership structure.

Hamas Funding: Sources of Revenue and Support

Historically, Hamas’s financial support originated largely from Palestinian expatriates and private donors within the Persian Gulf region. However, the financial landscape has evolved significantly over time. Today, Iran stands as one of Hamas’s most substantial benefactors, providing not only financial aid but also weapons and military training. Although relations between Iran and Hamas experienced a temporary strain due to their opposing stances on the Syrian civil war, Iran has resumed and even increased its financial support. U.S. State Department estimates from 2021 indicated that Iran provides approximately $100 million annually to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and other Palestinian groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United States. Following Hamas’s attack on Israel in late 2023, Iran was quick to publicly praise the operation and reaffirm its ongoing support for Hamas.

Turkey has also emerged as a significant supporter of Hamas and a vocal critic of Israel, particularly since President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ascent to power in 2002. While the Turkish government maintains that its support for Hamas is solely political, there have been accusations of Turkey channeling funds to Hamas for terrorist activities, allegedly through aid organizations such as the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency.

Egypt and Israel imposed a strict blockade on the Gaza Strip in 2006-07, severely restricting the movement of goods and people in and out of the territory. For years following the imposition of this blockade, Hamas generated revenue by taxing goods smuggled through an extensive network of tunnels circumventing the Egyptian border. This tunnel economy facilitated the entry of essential goods such as food, medicine, and fuel, as well as construction materials, cash, and weapons. While Egypt has since cracked down on the tunnel network, it began allowing some commercial goods into Gaza through the Salah al-Din border crossing in 2018. As of 2021, Hamas reportedly still collected substantial revenue, estimated at upward of $12 million per month, from taxes levied on Egyptian goods imported into Gaza.

Foreign Aid and Hamas’s Governance in Gaza

Prior to the current conflict, Israel permitted Qatar to channel substantial financial aid, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, to Gaza through Hamas. However, the majority of international aid intended for Gaza is typically delivered through the Palestinian Authority (PA) and United Nations agencies, notably the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Despite these channels, there have been persistent reports of Hamas diverting some of this aid for its own purposes. Due to its designation as a terrorist organization, Hamas and its governing bodies are excluded from receiving official aid from major donors such as the United States and the European Union (EU), which primarily direct their assistance to the West Bank and the PA. Some Islamic charities based in Western countries have reportedly channeled funds to social service groups affiliated with Hamas, prompting the U.S. Treasury to freeze their assets in efforts to disrupt these financial flows.

The recent Israel-Hamas war has inflicted catastrophic damage on the Gaza Strip, exacerbating pre-existing conditions of extreme poverty. Even before October 7, over one million Gazans were in need of humanitarian assistance. The war has resulted in the displacement of approximately 75 percent of Gaza’s population of over two million, and famine conditions are becoming increasingly prevalent. The ongoing Egyptian-Israeli blockade largely isolates Gaza from the outside world, making it heavily dependent on limited international aid permitted through Israeli inspections. UNRWA remains the primary distributor of aid within Gaza, but it has faced a significant funding crisis following accusations that some of its employees were involved in the October 7 attack. In response to these allegations, several major donor countries, including the United States, suspended or paused funding to UNRWA, further complicating the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Hamas’s governance of Gaza has been characterized by authoritarian practices and a lack of transparency. Hamas effectively became the de facto governing authority in Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal in 2005. In the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Hamas secured a majority of seats and formed a government. Its electoral success was attributed to its provision of social services and widespread dissatisfaction with the incumbent Fatah party, which was perceived by many Palestinians as corrupt and ineffective in its negotiations with Israel. However, the election outcome was rejected by Fatah and its Western allies. Fatah subsequently ousted Hamas from power in the West Bank. In Gaza, Hamas forcibly expelled Fatah’s militias in a week of intense fighting, leading to a lasting political split between the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian legislative elections have not been held since 2006, and presidential elections have been suspended since 2008, further entrenching the political division.

“The Hamas-controlled government has no effective or independent mechanisms for ensuring transparency in its funding, procurements, or operations.”

Freedom House

Upon consolidating its control in Gaza, Hamas established its own judicial system and implemented authoritarian governance structures. While theoretically adhering to the Palestinian Basic Law, which is sharia-based, Hamas’s interpretation and enforcement of law have been considerably more restrictive, particularly concerning social freedoms. This includes imposing controls on women’s dress and enforcing gender segregation in public spaces. The watchdog organization Freedom House concluded in a 2020 report that “the Hamas-controlled government has no effective or independent mechanisms for ensuring transparency in its funding, procurements, or operations.” Hamas also exerts tight control over media, suppresses civil society activism, and restricts political opposition, creating a system with limited accountability and significant restrictions on fundamental freedoms.

Hamas’s Military Capabilities and Challenges to Israel

For decades, Hamas’s military strategy against Israel has primarily involved rocket and mortar attacks, mass shootings, and suicide bombings. While Iranian security officials acknowledge providing some weaponry to Hamas, they also assert that Hamas has developed indigenous missile production capabilities through training and technology transfer from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxies. Israeli security assessments estimated that Hamas possessed an arsenal of approximately twenty thousand rockets and mortars at the outset of the current war with Israel. In addition to rocket attacks, Hamas has also conducted ground incursions into Israeli territory, resulting in casualties and kidnappings of both soldiers and civilians.

Prior to the 2023 conflict, Hamas and Israel engaged in one of their deadliest escalations in years in 2021. This round of fighting was triggered by weeks of rising tensions in Jerusalem between Palestinians and Israelis. Analysts suggest that Hamas’s actions in 2021 were partly motivated by a desire to enhance its image as the defender of the Palestinian cause, especially after the Palestinian Authority postponed scheduled elections. During the eleven-day conflict in 2021, Hamas and PIJ launched over four thousand rockets from Gaza into Israel, resulting in the deaths of ten Israeli civilians and injuries to over three hundred others. A cease-fire was eventually brokered by the United States and Egypt to end the hostilities.

The Unprecedented 2023 Hamas Attack on Israel

Hamas’s assault on southern Israel in 2023, codenamed “Operation al-Aqsa Storm,” represented a significant departure from previous tactics in its strategic planning, scale of execution, and operational secrecy, according to analysts. The attack commenced on October 7, coinciding with the Jewish Sabbath and a major Jewish holiday, with Hamas launching thousands of rockets into southern and central Israel, reaching as far north as Tel Aviv. Simultaneously, Hamas militants breached the heavily fortified Gaza border and infiltrated numerous Israeli towns and villages in the south. The attack resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people in Israel, with many more wounded and taken hostage.

Hamas fighters documented and livestreamed aspects of their operations, revealing instances of extreme brutality that experts suggest could constitute war crimes. In March 2024, UN investigators stated that there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that Hamas members committed sexual violence against hostages and victims of the October 7 attack. Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif stated that the operation was launched in response to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and alleged crimes against the Palestinian people.

The October 7 attack is the deadliest single-day attack in Israel’s 75-year history and has inflicted profound psychological trauma on the Israeli population, drawing comparisons to the surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor and September 11 in the United States. “It is completely unprecedented that a terrorist organization would have the capacity or the wherewithal to mount coordinated, simultaneous assaults from the air, sea, and land,” notes CFR Senior Fellow Bruce Hoffman.

The operation and the ensuing war have intensified international scrutiny of the ties between Hamas and Iran, as well as Iran’s broader network of regional allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. While the extent of direct coordination remains unclear, these groups have all launched attacks on Israel or Israel-linked targets since the conflict began. This includes Iran’s unprecedented direct attack on Israeli territory in April 2024 and ongoing missile and drone attacks by the Houthis, as well as attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea, prompting a U.S. naval operation to protect vital trade routes. These developments have heightened fears of a wider regional conflict engulfing the Middle East.

Palestinian Public Opinion on Hamas

Palestinian public opinion regarding Hamas is complex and divided. Prior to October 7, Hamas’s popularity was relatively low in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, although it generally polled more favorably than other Palestinian political factions. Many analysts believe that PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to cancel the 2021 Palestinian national elections was motivated by concerns that Hamas was likely to win.

Following the October 7 attack, public support for Hamas experienced a notable surge. According to a December 2023 poll, support for Hamas increased by four percentage points in Gaza and nearly quadrupled in the West Bank. However, even with this increase, Hamas did not achieve majority support in either territory. According to pollster Khalil Shikaki, “Palestinians believe that diplomacy and negotiations are not an option available to them, that only violence and armed struggle is the means to end the siege and blockade over Gaza, and in general to end the Israeli occupation.” However, Shikaki clarified that this increased support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of atrocities committed during the October 7 attack.

The Future Trajectory of Hamas

Israel’s stated objective in the current war is the complete elimination of Hamas as a military and political threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly declared “total victory” as Israel’s goal. Israeli military officials have claimed that Hamas no longer functions as an organized fighting force in northern Gaza, while its remaining leaders are believed to be in hiding in underground tunnels in the south.

Despite significant losses and operational setbacks, assessments from U.S. intelligence suggest that Hamas retains a considerable fighting capacity. CFR expert Bruce Hoffman noted in June 2024 that U.S. intelligence estimates indicate Hamas still has several thousand fighters in Gaza, and a significant portion of its tunnel infrastructure remains intact.

U.S. President Joe Biden has proposed a phased cease-fire agreement aimed at halting the conflict and securing the release of the remaining hostages, estimated to be around 115. However, negotiations for a cease-fire remained stalled as of October 2024, with significant disagreements between Israel and Hamas on the terms of any potential agreement.

Representatives from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have engaged in discussions about potential cooperation in forming a technocratic government to administer Gaza in the post-conflict period. They issued a joint statement in Beijing in July 2024 expressing their commitment to working together. However, the Israeli government is widely expected to oppose any outcome that allows Hamas to maintain a political or military presence in Gaza, making the long-term political future of the territory highly uncertain. As CFR’s Cook observes, “The Israelis are clearly willing to countenance international opprobrium for rejecting what they regard as a bad cease-fire deal that will allow Hamas to survive and fight another day.”

Conclusion: Hamas’s Enduring Impact

Hamas has emerged as a defining force in Palestinian politics and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From its origins in the Muslim Brotherhood to its current status as the de facto ruler of Gaza, Hamas has consistently pursued an ideology of armed resistance against Israel and the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state. Its military capabilities, regional alliances, and complex political dynamics within Palestinian society ensure that Hamas will continue to play a significant, albeit highly contested, role in the region for the foreseeable future. Understanding the multifaceted nature of Hamas – its ideology, organization, sources of support, and strategic objectives – is crucial for comprehending the ongoing conflict and navigating the prospects for any future resolution.