AFnews
(Dragoș Nelersa, Director of the Romanian Gazette from Tel Aviv)
In recent days, speculation has been rife in Israel that Hamas is on the verge of collapse. These assumptions are not unfounded: the elimination of some of the group’s high-ranking leaders, including Mohammed Sinwar – the brother of supreme leader Yahya Sinwar – and the head of the Rafah brigade, seems to confirm an increasingly fragile military reality for the terrorist organization. Information confirmed by the IDF and Shin Bet, combined with the IDF’s constant presence in southern Gaza and Hamas’ massive losses, paint a picture of a military structure in disarray.
However, it would be a serious mistake to interpret the situation in Gaza through the lens of Western logic. In classical terms, a military organization without command, without coherent controlled territory, and without governing capacity is considered defeated. But Hamas does not play by Western rules, and its military collapse does not automatically mean the end of the conflict—not even the end of Hamas.
This terrorist organization does not pursue rational goals in the classical sense: neither the protection of the Palestinian civilian population, nor the conservation of its resources, nor even the physical survival of its members. Since the massacre on October 7, Hamas has demonstrated that ideological jihad takes precedence over pragmatism. In Hamas’ logic, the survival of ideology and symbols has absolute priority. This means that it has no problem sacrificing tens of thousands of civilians if it can keep its message of struggle alive.
In this context, the ambiguity with which Hamas recently responded to the ceasefire proposal (the Witkoff plan) shows that the group is in no hurry to capitulate. On the contrary, it has demanded additional conditions—such as the staggered release of hostages over 60 days and the opening of the Rafah border crossing—conditions that are unacceptable to both Israel and the United States. This is clear evidence that Hamas is not seeking a temporary truce for humanitarian purposes, but a permanent ceasefire that will guarantee its political survival.
In southern Gaza, numerous clans are already rising up against Hamas. Chaos is setting in in the absence of clear authority, and more and more civilians are daring to speak out against the group. Humanitarian aid is reducing Hamas’ influence over the population and cutting off its sources of income. But even in collapse, Hamas remains dangerous. Not because it could win militarily, but because it feeds on suffering, chaos, and the symbolism of perpetual “resistance.”
Looking at this situation solely through the lens of Western rationalism is risky. If we evaluate Hamas as a conventional army or a classic political entity, we may draw premature conclusions. In reality, Hamas is not close to its end. Rather, it is undergoing a dangerous metamorphosis—from a hierarchical structure to an ideological myth.
And myths, unlike armies, never surrender.
Adaugă un comentariu