Introduction: A Realistic Take on Hamas and Future Conflicts
Oded Ailam, the former head of Mossad’s Counterterrorism Division, recently shared a stark assessment: disarming Hamas is not just difficult, it’s a fantasy under current political, regional, and operational conditions. In a Tuesday interview, Ailam argued that any lasting peace or permanent demobilization would require a convergence of compromised leadership, robust regional agreement, and unprecedented security guarantees—factors that mere military pressure alone is unlikely to secure. This analysis comes amid ongoing debates in Israeli political and military circles about the path forward after waves of violence and rounds of fighting.
Why Disarming Hamas Is Not Realistic
Ailam’s perspective rests on several practical realities. First, Hamas has deep roots in Gaza’s political and social fabric. While some factions may be weakened after battles, a complete disarmament would require an unprecedented level of local buy-in, governance reform from within, and external oversight that is hard to secure. Second, the group’s leadership often operates through a decentralized approach, blending militant activity with political messaging—an arrangement that complicates any effort to render their weapons unusable or irrelevant. Finally, regional dynamics—shifts in alliances, external funding streams, and the influence of rival factions—mean that even if disarmament were possible in one moment, the incentives for rearming could re-emerge quickly.
What Might Replace Disarmament as a Strategy?
Rather than pursuing a binary goal of disarmament, Ailam’s framework suggests a multi-layered approach focused on durable security and sustainable governance. This could include:
- Enhanced deterrence and intelligence sharing to prevent escalations.
- Tangible progress in humanitarian access and economic stabilization for Gaza to reduce support for militancy.
- Structured security arrangements that allow control over weaponized groups while avoiding large-scale civilian harm.
- Regional diplomacy aimed at reducing external influence and creating a viable political horizon for Gaza’s factions.
Unpacking the Security Implications for Israel
For Israeli security planners, the central takeaway is realism. The notion of eradicating armed factions in a single campaign does not align with historical patterns in asymmetric warfare. A future conflict could be shaped by a cycle: short-term raids or cross-border exchanges, followed by periods of relative calm, punctuated by renewed violence as political calculations shift. The job for policymakers is to prepare for that cycle with robust resilience, civilian protection plans, and credible deterrence that does not rely on fragile assumptions about total disarmament.
Diplomatic and Humanitarian Dimensions
Beyond military considerations, the Hamas issue intersects with diplomacy and humanitarian concerns. Any credible plan must address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the political legitimacy of any governing authority, and the regional power balance. The potential for negotiated arrangements or new governance models cannot be ignored in conversations about long-term stability, even if these talks remain highly challenging.
Conclusion: A Pragmatic Path Forward
Oded Ailam’s insight reframes the conversation around Hamas not as an existential threat that can be eliminated through force alone, but as a complex political-military reality requiring comprehensive strategy. The future is likely to involve cycles of confrontation and negotiation, with an emphasis on deterrence, governance, and regional diplomacy to reduce civilian suffering and create a more stable security environment. While the goal of a permanent disarmament remains a powerful ideal for some observers, the practical pathway to lasting peace may lie in achievable, incremental security gains and sustained engagement rather than a single decisive victory.
