The Long-Held Rivalry Between ISIS and Hamas In Gaza

This article was originally published on July 30, 2024, in Strategic Wisdom

Both Hamas and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) identify as Islamist groups and have engaged in militant activities.

However, the two groups’ overarching goals, strategies, and beliefs starkly contrast with each other.

What are the differences between these two groups? And why do they hate each other to the point both strove against each other in Gaza and the Sinai, with Hamas in the end prevailing?

ISIS, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, adheres to a strict Salafi-jihadist doctrine. The group's ultimate aim is to establish a global caliphate governed by their interpretation of Islamic law (Sharia). ISIS views the modern nation-state system as inherently un-Islamic and seeks to dissolve national boundaries in favor of a unified Islamic ummah (community). Their ideology is uncompromising, rejecting any form of nationalism or political pragmatism.

Hamas, officially known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic principles. Founded in 1987 during the First Intifada, Hamas aims to establish a so-called “Palestine” on top of what is today Israel, establishing an anti-Semitic Islamic state within. Unlike ISIS, Hamas has engaged in political processes, including participating in elections and negotiating with non-Islamic entities.

This pragmatic approach is part of their strategy to achieve Palestinian statehood.

ISIS vehemently opposes Palestinian nationalism, viewing it as a divisive and heretical concept that detracts from the unity of the global Muslim ummah. For ISIS, loyalty should not be to a specific nation or ethnic group but to the worldwide Muslim community under a single caliphate. This ideological stance leads ISIS to reject the notion of a Palestinian state, which they see as a distraction from the broader goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate.

Moreover, ISIS criticizes Hamas for incorporating nationalist elements into their agenda. To ISIS, nationalism is a Western import that undermines Islamic unity. The concept of fighting for a specific territory or people is seen as contradictory to the idea of fighting for the global dominance of Islam.

Both ISIS and Hamas have employed the tactic of taking hostages to further their respective goals, though their methods and underlying motivations can differ. ISIS has notoriously used hostages for brutal propaganda purposes, executing captives in highly publicized and gruesome videos to instill fear, attract media attention, and demonstrate their ruthlessness. These acts serve as a tool for psychological warfare, aiming to demoralize opponents and intimidate populations. ISIS also demands ransoms for hostages, using these funds to support their operations and logistics.

Hamas, while also engaging in hostage-taking, often uses hostages as bargaining chips to achieve political or military objectives. One prominent example is the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006, who was held for over five years and eventually exchanged for over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. This strategic use of hostages allows Hamas to leverage negotiations with Israel and other stakeholders. Currently, Hamas holds 115 Israelis hostage in Gaza, hostages that it had taken in the October 7, 2023, Palestinian attack on southern Israel.

However, Hamas faces certain limitations in its tactics due to the influence of regional partners like Qatar and Egypt. Both countries have vested interests in the stability of the region and their relationships with Western powers, particularly the United States. Qatar provides financial support to Hamas and mediates in negotiations, while Egypt controls the Rafah border crossing, a critical lifeline for Gaza.

These regional partners exert pressure on Hamas to moderate its actions to avoid international backlash. For instance, Qatar and Egypt have encouraged Hamas to maintain ceasefires and engage in indirect talks with Israel to prevent escalation. They understand that overly brutal or extreme actions by Hamas could lead to increased scrutiny and sanctions from Washington, potentially jeopardizing their own diplomatic and economic interests.

As a result, while Hamas employs militant tactics similar to ISIS, including the use of hostages, it is often compelled to calibrate its approach to maintain the support and avoid the disapproval of its regional allies. This dynamic creates a complex interplay between Hamas's strategic objectives and the geopolitical considerations of its backers.

The ideological differences between ISIS and Hamas are profound and stem from their fundamentally divergent visions of Islam's role in governance and society. ISIS adheres to a rigid Salafi-jihadist ideology, which emphasizes the establishment of a global caliphate governed by an extreme interpretation of Sharia law.

This vision is rooted in a belief in the necessity of purging Islam of what they see as heretical and corrupting influences, including nationalism, modern state boundaries, and any form of democratic governance. ISIS considers itself a vanguard movement, committed to an apocalyptic struggle against both non-Muslims and Muslims who do not share their puritanical views.

Their approach is characterized by a brutal and uncompromising methodology, which includes widespread terrorism, enslavement, and public executions, all aimed at enforcing their ideological purity and expanding their control.

In contrast, Hamas blends Palestinian nationalism with Islamism, creating a unique ideological stance that prioritizes the creation of a so-called “Palestine” and the establishment of an Islamic state within Israel’s borders once Jews are expelled or captured.

While Hamas also seeks to implement Sharia law, their interpretation is more pragmatic and less rigid than that of ISIS. Hamas’s ideology is deeply intertwined with the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and sovereignty. They see their mission as not only religious but also as a nationalistic endeavor to reclaim what they consider to be Palestinian lands and rights.

This nationalism is anathema to ISIS, which rejects any form of allegiance that competes with loyalty to a global Islamic caliphate. Moreover, Hamas engages in the political process, as evidenced by their participation in elections and their willingness to negotiate with other Palestinian factions and even with Israel under certain circumstances.

This pragmatic approach, aimed at achieving tangible political and social goals, is viewed by ISIS as a betrayal of pure jihadist principles. These ideological differences shape not only the objectives of each group but also their methods, strategies, and interactions with the broader Muslim world and international community.

In Gaza, the ideological rift between ISIS and Hamas has occasionally resulted in violent clashes. The tension became particularly pronounced after ISIS-affiliated groups emerged in the Gaza Strip. One significant episode occurred in August 2009, when a radical Islamist group, which was influenced by al-Qaeda and later aligned with ISIS, declared an "Islamic emirate" in the southern town of Rafah. This declaration was a direct challenge to Hamas's authority and its approach to governance.

Another critical moment occurred in January 2018, when ISIS's Sinai Province escalated its conflict with Hamas. The extremist group released a 22-minute video calling for attacks against Hamas, which it accused of collaborating with the "disbelieving West" and failing to prevent the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The video, which included graphic footage of an execution of a man accused of collaborating with Hamas, urged followers to use explosives and other weapons against Hamas's security infrastructure.

Hamas, which has maintained control over Gaza since its election victory in 2006, views any challenge to its authority as a serious threat. The group's leadership is deeply invested in maintaining order and managing its relations with regional powers, including Egypt and Qatar.

The emergence of ISIS-affiliated radicals was seen as undermining Hamas’s control and stability in Gaza. Consequently, Hamas launched a crackdown on these militants, resulting in significant violence and casualties.

For Israel, Washington, and counterinsurgents, recognizing these differences between the two groups is vital for crafting effective responses.

Treating Hamas and ISIS as interchangeable entities risks misunderstanding their distinct motivations and operational methods, potentially leading to misguided policies.