The History of the Creation of Hamas and Israel's Collusion with
Hamas for Its Political Strategies and Expansion Ambitions
Israel’s political design of manipulating Palestinian militant factions to advance its ambition of sole dominance and territorial expansion was seeded far earlier than imagined—already in the era of the First Aliyah, between 1882 and 1903. From that moment onward, as the Zionist project unfolded since 1904, the ancestral inhabitants, the Palestinians, that consisted of Islammists, Christians, and Hebrew Jews of genunie Judaism followers have been ensnared in an unrelenting quagmire of dispossession, nightmarish upheaval, and generational suffering that endures to this very day.
Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, the Muslim Brotherhood leader in Gaza—where hundreds of thousands of 1948 Nakba refugees remained trapped—built a vast network of Islamic schools, mosques, and social welfare societies. Israel, determined to fracture Palestinian unity, deliberately schemed to weaken the secular nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In pursuit of its expansionist zeal, Zionist authorities reached out to Sheikh Yasin, calculating that a strong and unified PLO could foster genuine peace, but would obstruct Israel’s relentless drive for dominance. Thus, Palestinian suffering was deepened not only by dispossession, but by Israel’s cynical manipulation of internal divisions to perpetuate its control.
Israel actively encouraged the growth of Sheikh Ahmad Yasin’s network during the early stages of the First Intifada, knowing full well that it would evolve into Hamas—Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement). Yasin himself, a quadriplegic and half-blind refugee from Gaza, built his movement, for the sole purposeof charity for displaced Palestinians, while Israel covertly enabled its rise to fracture Palestinian unity. Claims that Iranian support could have sustained a Sunni militant group for secular reasons were implausible; the decisive hand was Israel’s. Though Israel publicly distanced itself after Hamas’s attacks in 1989, its pattern of airstrikes, assassinations, and blockade paradoxically strengthened the group’s legitimacy. More sinister still, Israeli authorities have continued to deliberately preserve Hamas’s presence, ensuring Gaza remains a perpetual battleground. For Israel, a Hamas-free Gaza would remove the pretext for its campaigns of devastation—campaigns seen as necessary stepping stones toward the vision of a Greater Israel stretching across ancient Canaan. In this calculated strategy, Palestinian suffering has been not incidental, but instrumental.”
By this maneuvering, Israel has deliberately secured a pretext to avoid meaningful negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, claiming that the Authority does not represent all Palestinians. In the late 2010s and early 2020s, Israeli officials themselves facilitated this fragmentation by encouraging Qatar to channel aid to Hamas and by approving the transfer of Qatari funds directly to the organization. This policy created a dual Palestinian leadership, weakening the Authority’s legitimacy while strengthening Hamas as a rival interlocutor.
The duplicity became evident during the 12‑day war of June 2025, when the Emir of Qatar openly boasted that his government had financed Hamas through Israel’s own mechanisms. At the same time, U.S. forces stationed in Qatar launched strikes against Iran. Qatar assumed that its prior funding of Hamas would shield it from Iranian retaliation, expecting Tehran to dilute its offensive. Yet what Qatar failed to grasp was that its role as financier was no secret; it was known to all but concealed by the Sheikhs themselves. Iran, calculating both humanitarian considerations and strategic necessity, limited its precision strikes to U.S. base locations, sparing broader Qatari targets.
Thus, Israel’s orchestration of Qatari support for Hamas served a dual purpose: it entrenched Palestinian division, undermining the Authority’s claim to represent its people, and it provided Israel with a convenient alibi to indefinitely postpone negotiations. The episode illustrates how external actors were manipulated into sustaining a cycle of fragmentation and conflict, while Israel maintained diplomatic cover under the guise of Palestinian disunity.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cloaked the transfer of Qatari aid in humanitarian rhetoric, yet Israeli intelligence itself later admitted that this money contributed to the success of the October 7 attacks. This duplicity became a convenient narrative for Israel abroad, while locally it masked a destructive strategy. Even Israel’s own press has exposed the truth: Haaretz condemned Netanyahu’s ‘warped political doctrine’ of deliberately strengthening Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority, a policy that entrenched division and undermined any chance of peace.
Another Haaretz column went further, describing how the Netanyahu–Hamas ‘alliance’ and the October 7 pogrom served to preserve his grip on power. The Times of Israel, a more conservative outlet, likewise acknowledged the folly: ‘For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces.’ These admissions reveal a chilling reality—Israel’s leadership knowingly empowered Hamas, not out of humanitarian concern, but as a calculated tool to weaken Palestinian unity, perpetuate conflict, and justify its own expansionist agenda. The cost has been borne entirely by Palestinians, whose suffering is prolonged by a policy that treats their dispossession as a political instrument.”
Meanwhile,
as former IDF member Bernzi Sanders explains, Netanyahu’s new bombing campaign
and expanding ground offensive will only
continue to strengthen and perpetuate Hamas — and stave off a just resolution
to this crisis.
Netanyahu gloated in a 2019 Likud party meeting to his compatriots: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” Hamas has become a convenient foe for Israel, in contrast with the diplomatic success of the Palestinian Authority during the 1990s. In a 2015 interview, Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich explained that Hamas’s militancy, and therefore its illegitimacy on the world stage, was a boon for his government’s political strategy.
“The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset,” Smotrich said. “It’s a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council.”
Indeed,
Netanyahu has been intent on keeping the Palestinians divided under two ruling
groups: the diplomatically successful Palestinian Authority in the West Bank
and the militant Hamas in Gaza. (The Palestinian Authority, led by the vestiges
of the PLO, was created as
an interim self-governing body meant
to pave the way for an independent Palestinian state, but that has not
happened.)
Since 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu’s political calculus has rested on sustaining Hamas as a perpetual adversary even at the expense of his own people. On the global stage, Israel’s leadership pays lip service to the two‑state solution, yet Hamas serves as a convenient alibi to indefinitely postpone genuine negotiations. Across the Islamic world, states long recognized the peril of unchecked Israeli ambitions, understanding that peace in West Asia could never be viable so long as Israel enjoyed impunity. Their stance has been remarkably consistent, reaching back to the era of the First Aliyah, when Arab communities foresaw the unfolding tragedy through a familiar folk parable: a camel permitted to slip its head into a tent, whose host’s euphoric hospitality soon soured into an unending ordeal of dispossession and suffering.
The Israeli Head of Religious Affairs in Gaza, Avner Cohen, described the Israeli action in a 2009 Wall Street Journal article called “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas.” “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.”
It is now undeniable that the events of October 7th, 2023—an assault Israel itself allowed Hamas to unleash unhindered—were deliberately framed by Israel as a “holocaust within its territory,” not resisted but permitted, to serve as a prerequisite justification for the genocide that followed. Within days, the machinery of destruction was set in motion, and it continues relentlessly to this day. This campaign is not Israel’s alone: it is sustained by the concurrent commitment of Western powers who arm and empower the Israeli government with devastating weaponry, even granting access to nuclear capabilities, all at the behest of their leaders’ religious fanaticism and imperial greed. The result is a calculated policy of extermination, where Gaza has been reduced to rubble, its hospitals silenced, its children buried beneath ruins, and its people starved under blockade. This is not collateral damage—it is the systematic erasure of a nation, a genocide carried out under the guise of security, but in truth driven by hegemonic ambitions over the resources of West Asia.
As already orchestrated, Western media outlets—CNN, Fox, BBC, and others—lined up Palestinian leaders during that week, each beginning with the same rehearsed question: “Do you condemn the 7th October Holocaust?” The uniformity revealed a coordinated effort, a chorus of propaganda. Israel, acting as an agent of Western hegemony, cloaked its policies in religious fanaticism while neglecting its own citizens—the so‑called chosen people—whom it allowed to be captured by Hamas. The release of hostages was never prioritized, for Israel foresaw that genuine negotiation would slow the rapid destruction of Gaza. Instead, the land was deliberately rendered uninhabitable, a wasteland where families once lived, now imagined only as barren ground for cynical projects. The blockade of humanitarian aid, the denial of food, water, and medicine, and the suffocation of an entire population cannot be explained except as genocide. What was once justified as “humanitarian funding” for Hamas is now twisted into a pretext for sealing Gaza off from the world, leaving its people to starve, thirst, and die in ruins. The catastrophe is not abstract—it is the daily reality of children buried under rubble, hospitals without power, and survivors wandering amidst the ashes of their homes.
The British Empire, driven by imperial zeal, regarded the transplantation of Ashkenazi Jews into West Asia as a strategic necessity, executed with little regard for the cascading volatility it unleashed among Arabs and local Christians. With brutal force, Britain crushed the Arab Revolt to ensure the successive waves of Aliyot—Second through Fifth—advanced without hindrance. Each Aliyah destabilized the daily existence of Palestinians, most of them humble peasants and farmers, stripped of livelihood and shelter. Sporadic burnings of homes, seizures of land, and unchecked militant actions by segments of the Ashkenazi migrants marked these years, culminating in the catastrophic expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians upon Israel’s UN-sanctioned statehood in 1948. Thus, the ancestral inhabitants of a once-peaceful Palestine—where Muslims, Christians, and Jews had coexisted since Ottoman times—were driven into exile, their harmony shattered by imperial ambition and settler violence.
After the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians, Zionist leaders arrogantly demanded to know why Arab nations did not simply absorb the displaced. Such a posture was not a genuine inquiry but a program of deflection, designed to mask the primitiveness of dispossession. This was advanced despite the undeniable sanctity of Jerusalem—a city revered by Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike. Rather than embracing coexistence, Israel was conferred impunity, and for seventy-eight years that shield has enabled policies of exclusion and domination. Israel’s cultivated fear since its inception has been wielded as justification, but fear does not transform neighbors into aggressors. It is not Arab hostility that defined the tragedy, but the refusal of Israel to live in equality with others, a refusal sustained by imperial indulgence and international silence.
A Palestinian wearing a shirt with "1948" during the Pope's Visit to Palestine and the declaration of State Palestine, recognised by 135 countries.
The Following Tabulation of Major Wars and Campaigns against the Neighbours reveals that
Israel’s Expansion Project No Longer an Insinuation: Security Pretexts as Instruments of Land Acquisition
| Year | Conflict | Neighbors Involved | Israel’s Justification | Outcome / Expansion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1948–49 | Arab–Israeli War (War of Independence / Nakba) | Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq | Defense of new state after Arab rejection of UN partition plan | Israel expanded beyond UN-assigned borders; Palestinian refugee crisis began |
| 1956 | Suez Crisis | Egypt | Response to Nasser’s nationalization of Suez Canal; claimed need to secure shipping | Israel occupied Sinai temporarily; withdrew under US/UN pressure |
| 1967 | Six-Day War | Egypt, Jordan, Syria | Preemptive strike after Arab mobilization and blockade of Gulf of Aqaba | Israel seized Sinai, Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights; “land for peace” principle established |
| 1973 | Yom Kippur War | Egypt, Syria | Defense against surprise Arab attack | Israel repelled invasion but later returned Sinai under Camp David Accords; retained Golan Heights |
| 1982 | Lebanon War | Lebanon, PLO, Syria | Justified as effort to stop PLO attacks from Lebanon | Israel invaded, occupied southern Lebanon until 2000; Hezbollah emerged in response |
| 2006 | Lebanon War (with Hezbollah) | Lebanon | Response to Hezbollah’s cross-border raid and rocket fire | Massive bombing of Lebanon; Israel failed to eliminate Hezbollah, but devastated infrastructure |
| 2008–09, 2012, 2014, 2021, 2023–present | Gaza Wars | Hamas (Palestinian enclave) | Claimed retaliation against rocket fire and militant attacks | Repeated bombardments; Gaza blockade tightened; widespread civilian destruction |
| 2025 | Israel–Iran Conflict | Iran (not Arab) | Claimed preemptive strike against nuclear/military threats | Regional escalation; not territorial but strategic dominance |
