Introduction: A Warning from Experience
In a candid Tuesday interview, Oded Ailam, the former head of Mossad’s Counterterrorism Division, warned that the idea of disarming Hamas is a fantasy that should not guide Israeli strategic planning. Drawing on decades of field experience, Ailam suggested that while diplomacy and pressure are essential, a complete, enduring seizure of Hamas’s military capabilities is unlikely in the near term.
Why a Lasting Disarmament Is Unlikely
Ailam’s assessment rests on several pillars: the organization’s entrenched social and political networks in Gaza, the breadth of its armed capabilities, and the broader regional dynamics that empower it to withstand pressure from multiple fronts. He argues that Hamas has evolved beyond a conventional paramilitary force and now operates as a hybrid actor with political, social, and violent wings. This complexity makes a unilateral, comprehensive disarmament solution extraordinarily difficult to achieve through force alone.
Strategic Realities on the Ground
From the perspective of security professionals, disarmament would require an long-term, multi-layered approach combining military pressure, credible deterrence, and credible political integration—an approach that has proven elusive in the region. Ailam emphasized that any strategy must anticipate enduring challenges, including potential regional spillovers, the risk of a power vacuum, and the possibility of alternate militant groups filling gaps left by Hamas.
What Ailam Says About Future Conflicts
Looking ahead, the former Mossad leader expects another round of fighting. He cautions that even if political leaders reach temporary pauses or ceasefires, the underlying irritants—territorial disputes, governance disputes in Gaza, and external support networks for militants—mean violence could resume. The cycle is difficult to break without addressing core grievances and security concerns that fuel Hamas’s appeal among segments of the population.
Deterrence vs. Elimination
Instead of chasing an elusive eliminational goal, Ailam suggests that a robust deterrence framework and persistent, targeted counterterrorism operations may offer a more viable path to reducing Hamas’s threat level. This includes intelligence-driven operations, border control enhancements, and international coordination to disrupt external supply lines, financing, and recruitment.
Implications for Israeli Policy and Public Debate
The discussion around disarming Hamas intersects with broader debates about two-state solutions, humanitarian considerations, and regional security arrangements. Ailam’s view adds a cautionary voice to the coalition debates in Israel, underscoring the risk that overly optimistic disarmament goals could distract from pragmatic, incremental measures that reduce violence and save lives in the near term.
Conclusion: A Call for Realistic Objectives
Oded Ailam’s remarks channel a central tension in counterterrorism strategy: the gap between ideal end-states and achievable outcomes. Recognizing disarming Hamas as unrealistic may push policymakers toward more effective, evidence-based strategies that emphasize deterrence, intelligence, and diplomacy in tandem. The path forward, as he frames it, is not about a single decisive victory but a sustained effort to reduce threats while navigating a complex regional landscape.
