The Divergent Fates of ISIS and Hamas: Why One Fell and the Other Endures

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Hamas have both been designated as terrorist organizations by various governments, yet their trajectories differ significantly. ISIS, a transnational insurgent group, was dismantled as a territorial entity through a coordinated military campaign. Hamas, on the other hand, remains entrenched in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demonstrating remarkable endurance despite repeated military confrontations. This divergence can be attributed to differences in ideological foundations, organizational structures, territorial control strategies, relationships with local populations, and external support. The ongoing Israel-Hamas war that erupted in October 2023 further underscores these distinctions, revealing why Hamas cannot be eradicated through military means alone, as was the case with ISIS.

ISIS and Hamas differ fundamentally in their ideological foundations and strategic objectives[1]. ISIS emerged from the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq, positioning itself as the vanguard of a global jihadist movement. It sought to establish an Islamic caliphate, imposing strict Sharia law and expanding its control through military conquest. ISIS’s ideology was inherently expansionist, demanding absolute loyalty while branding dissenters—including other Islamist groups—as apostates. In contrast, Hamas is a nationalist-Islamist movement with a localized agenda. While advocating for the establishment of an Islamic state in historic Palestine, its primary objective remains resistance against Israeli occupation^[2]. Unlike ISIS, Hamas engages in governance and diplomacy alongside its military activities. This pragmatic approach has helped Hamas sustain long-term support among Palestinians, positioning itself as both a resistance force and a political authority.

The structural differences between ISIS and Hamas significantly impact their resilience. ISIS operated as a centralized insurgent force, seizing and governing large territories in Iraq and Syria. However, its governance model was characterized by extreme brutality, economic mismanagement, and coercive control, leading to alienation among local populations. Once military pressure intensified, ISIS rapidly lost its territorial holdings and collapsed as a governing entity. Hamas, in contrast, has developed an enduring governance structure within the Gaza Strip. Since taking control in 2007, it has built bureaucratic institutions, social service programs, and a political framework that integrates armed resistance with civilian administration. Its ability to provide essential services—including healthcare, education, and infrastructure—has embedded it within Gazan society, making it far more difficult to dislodge than ISIS. The ongoing 2023–2024 war has severely strained Hamas’s military capabilities, yet it continues to attempt resistance and regroup despite intense pressure, whereas ISIS’s governance crumbled once its territorial strongholds were taken.

ISIS’s downfall was also due to its adversarial relationship with local populations. While it initially gained support from disaffected Sunni groups in Iraq and Syria, its governance model relied on fear and suppression, ultimately provoking rebellion. Local Sunni tribes turned against ISIS, and when external military forces applied pressure, its territorial rule collapsed. Hamas, by contrast, has apparently maintained a significant base of support within Gaza and parts of the West Bank, reinforced through its role in the broader Palestinian resistance movement. Even amid heavy military campaigns, Hamas retains legitimacy among many Palestinians, unlike ISIS, which was largely rejected by those under its rule. The ongoing war suggests that Hamas may still maintain support despite large-scale destruction, whereas ISIS’s governance, marked by alienation and brutality, led to the loss of local support.

Another crucial factor in the divergent fates of ISIS and Hamas is the role of external actors. ISIS faced near-universal opposition from the international community. The US-led coalition, Russia, Iran, and regional militias coordinated extensive air and ground operations, systematically dismantling its territorial control. ISIS lacked sustained state sponsorship, and once its financial and logistical networks were disrupted, its operational capacity diminished significantly. Hamas, however, operates within a far more complex geopolitical landscape. It receives financial and military support from regional actors such as Iran and Qatar, ensuring its continued existence despite Israeli military efforts. Furthermore, diplomatic constraints limit the feasibility of an all-out military resolution. Unlike the global consensus against ISIS, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict divides international actors, with ongoing calls for ceasefires and negotiations shaping the course of military engagements. The ongoing conflict has underscored these constraints, with external mediators continuously pushing for negotiated solutions, thereby preventing Israel from achieving a decisive military victory.

The military strategies of ISIS and Hamas further contribute to their differing fates. ISIS pursued a conventional warfare model, attempting to seize and govern large regions of territory. This made it vulnerable to large-scale military offensives, as conventional armies could engage and defeat its forces in open battles. Once it lost its control areas, its ability to function as a state entity disintegrated. Hamas, by contrast, employs asymmetric warfare tactics, including rocket attacks, underground tunnel networks, and decentralized militant cells[3]. Operating within densely populated urban environments, it complicates military engagement for Israel, increasing the risks of collateral damage and international condemnation. These factors make Hamas far more difficult to dismantle than ISIS, which was susceptible to direct military campaigns. The ongoing war has further demonstrated Hamas’s adaptability, as it continues to launch attacks despite heavy Israeli bombardment—an operational resilience that ISIS was unable to maintain when facing overwhelming military force.

The ongoing Israel-Hamas war provides a real-time case study of these dynamics. Since October 2023, Israel has launched a large-scale military campaign aimed at dismantling Hamas’s infrastructure, targeting leadership figures, tunnel networks, and rocket-launching sites. Despite these efforts, Hamas has maintained certain operational capabilities and continued armed resistance. The group’s deep integration within Gaza’s social and political fabric makes its elimination far more difficult than that of ISIS. Unlike ISIS, which collapsed as a state when its territorial base was lost, Hamas persists as a movement intertwined with Palestinian nationalism and governance.

The comparison between ISIS and Hamas highlights the complexities of combating militant organizations. ISIS’s reliance on territorial expansion and extreme governance marginalized local populations and provoked a global military response, leading to its downfall. Hamas, in contrast, remains embedded within Palestinian society, balancing governance with military resistance. Its ability to sustain support, secure regional backing, and operate through asymmetric warfare ensures its survival despite repeated military confrontations. The current war has reinforced these realities, showing that efforts to eliminate Hamas through military means alone are unlikely to succeed. Unlike ISIS, which could be dismantled through direct military campaigns, Hamas’s endurance underscores the limitations of purely military solutions in addressing deeply rooted geopolitical conflicts. A long-term resolution will require a comprehensive approach that considers political, social, and diplomatic dimensions alongside security measures.

—

[1] For further reading, see for example: The Importance of Understanding the Differences Between Hamas, IS, and al-Qaeda.” Danish Institute for International Studies, 2023. https://www.diis.dk/en/research/the-importance-of-understanding-the-differences-between-hamas-is-and-al-qaeda; Hamas and ISIS Are Not the Same — and That Matters.” POLITICO, 21 Nov. 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/21/hamas-isis-are-not-the-same-00128107

[2] See my previous article: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-inevitable-truth-about-hamas-a-lesson-for-protesters-on-us-university-campuses/

[3] See my previous article: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-complexities-of-asymmetric-warfare-legal-and-ethical-challenges-in-modern-conflict/