Overview: A Veteran’s Warning on Hamas and the Road Ahead
In a recent interview, Oded Ailam, the former head of Mossad’s Counterterrorism Division, sounded a stark note about the future of Hamas and the prospects for disarmament. While political leaders often debate strategies for stabilizing Gaza and securing regional peace, Ailam argues that disarming Hamas is a fantasy that Israeli political and military elites need to recognize. He predicts that another round of fighting is likely, driven by entrenched grievances, political dynamics, and the complexity of asymmetric warfare in the region.
Why Disarming Hamas Is Considered Unrealistic
Disarming a non-state actor like Hamas is not simply a matter of degrading its military capabilities. It involves addressing a constellation of ideological, social, and political factors that sustain the group’s support base. Ailam’s assessment emphasizes several key challenges:
- Asymmetric warfare). Hamas operates through networks, tunnels, and guerrilla tactics that complicate any effort to neutralize it entirely with conventional means.
- Governance and legitimacy. The group has political branches and social services that embed it within Palestinian communities, creating a legitimacy dynamic that hardens resistance to outside coercion.
- External influence and power shifts. Regional dynamics, including support from allies and competitors, can sustain Hamas even if some leaders are removed or weakened.
- Cycles of violence. History shows that eruptions of violence tend to follow periods of stalemate, grievance, or failed negotiations, making long-term disarmament more elusive than it seems in theory.
The Call for Realism in Strategy and Policy
Ailam’s perspective is not a blanket endorsement of status quo violence. Instead, he urges policymakers to adopt a more pragmatic framework that acknowledges the limits of disarmament without abandoning security objectives. Key components of a possible, more sustainable approach include:
- Strategic restraint and deterrence. Maintaining credible deterrence to prevent large-scale attacks while avoiding excessive escalation that could generalize into broader conflicts.
- Targeted, surgical measures. Focused operations to disrupt leadership networks, financing channels, and operational capabilities while minimizing civilian harm and regional blowback.
- Political and humanitarian engagement. Parallel tracks of diplomacy and aid that address humanitarian needs, governance gaps, and opportunities for local reconciliation, which can indirectly undermine Hamas’s influence.
- Regional cooperation. Coordinated efforts with neighboring states to manage cross-border threats, information sharing, and conflict de-escalation mechanisms.
The Human Cost and Ethical Considerations
Any analysis of Hamas’s future faces the human dimension head-on. Civilians in Gaza bear the brunt of ongoing conflict, and the moral calculus of any intervention weighs heavily on all sides. Ailam’s comments underscore the urgency of pursuing avenues that reduce casualties while maintaining a credible defense posture. The emphasis on realism does not equal abdication of responsibility; rather, it calls for disciplined strategy and tough choices informed by years of security experience.
What this Means for Israeli Policy and Public Debate
For Israeli leaders and the public, Ailam’s warnings add a layer of caution to debates about military options, peace talks, and civil resilience. If disarming Hamas is unlikely, then policymakers may prioritize stability, regional diplomacy, and resilience planning. The dialogue becomes less about a binary victory and more about managing a persistent threat while expanding humanitarian and governance avenues that can gradually reduce the group’s appeal.
Conclusion: Preparing for Next Steps in a Prolonged Challenge
Oded Ailam’s assessment is a reminder that the Israeli security apparatus must balance aspirations for security with the practical realities of how non-state actors operate in a densely contested region. The forecast of another conflict does not imply inevitability but signals the need for a strategic posture rooted in deterrence, precision actions, and sustained regional cooperation. As the region awaits the next chapter, experts agree that durable peace will require more than disarmament fantasies—it will demand durable, multidimensional solutions.
