What Hamas Can Teach the Jews

For Israeli Jews, the picture could not be clearer. For Jews outside Israel, this moment ought to serve as a wake-up call to the limits of goodwill and alliance-building.

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

Much has been documented about the “conceptzia” that certain politicians in Israel had about Hamas.

The Hebrew term “conceptzia” refers to a deeply entrenched strategic or ideological assumption that shapes decision-making. In the context of Israel’s approach to Hamas, it describes the long-held belief by certain Israeli politicians, military officials, and security experts that Hamas could be “managed” or contained in a way that served broader strategic interests.

For years, this assumption shaped policies that allowed Hamas to govern Gaza with relative autonomy, based on several key beliefs:

1. Hamas as a Useful Counterweight to the Palestinian Authority – Some in the Israeli leadership saw Hamas as a way to weaken the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, preventing the emergence of a unified Palestinian front that could negotiate from a stronger position.

2. Hamas as a Rational Actor – The idea that Hamas, despite its radical ideology, could be deterred through military operations and economic incentives. This view led to periodic escalations and ceasefires rather than a decisive effort to dismantle the group.

3. Hamas’ Governance as a Stability Factor – Israeli policymakers believed that Hamas’ rule in Gaza was preferable to chaos or a vacuum of power, which could lead to even more extreme groups taking control.

4. Economic Pressure as a Moderating Force – Some Israeli officials assumed that by allowing limited economic activity — such as work permits for Gazan laborers in Israel — Hamas’ leadership would prioritize governance over armed conflict.

5. Intelligence Superiority – The belief that Israel’s intelligence capabilities provided sufficient early-warning mechanisms to prevent Hamas from launching a large-scale attack.

This “conceptzia” collapsed spectacularly on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on Israel, proving that many of these assumptions were flawed or outright false.

The attack demonstrated that Hamas was not interested in mere deterrence or economic benefits, but remained committed to its ideological goal of destroying Israel. It also exposed critical failures in intelligence and military preparedness, leading to a major reevaluation of Israel’s security doctrines and strategic outlook toward Hamas and Gaza.

In other words, Israel effectively helped Hamas rise and retain power in Gaza, and become a serious player in the Middle East — and the terror group still launched an unprecedented massacre against Israelis on October 7th.

This should be a serious warning to Israeli Jews and Diaspora Jews alike: We cannot count on the “other” to support us even when we have demonstrated significant support for them.

For Israeli Jews, the picture could not be clearer: No matter how much land Israel gives to the Palestinians, true peace is unattainable (knowing what we know today). The bad actors in their society (and there are many) will use it to continuously launch indiscriminate attacks against (mostly civilian) Israelis until the State of Israel no longer exists.

The future of Israel’s security doctrine must shift from containment to eradication of existential threats. No nation can afford to sustain terror entities on its borders, let alone one that seeks its total destruction. October 7th made it clear that Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terror groups do not operate within the bounds of rational statecraft; they are driven by an ideological mission that cannot be pacified.

This stark reality underscores a crucial lesson that should resonate not just within Israel, but across the global Jewish community: Appeasement and accommodation do not guarantee security or goodwill. For decades, many in Israel and the Diaspora have believed that concessions — whether territorial, economic, or political — could pave the way to coexistence. But October 7th shattered this illusion.

For Jews outside Israel, this moment ought to serve as a wake-up call to the limits of goodwill and alliance-building. The widespread support (both explicit and implicit) for Hamas in the wake of its atrocities — from student protests in Western universities to the halls of international institutions — exposes the deep-seated indifference or even hostility toward Jewish life and security. Even in societies where Jews have contributed immensely, they cannot take acceptance or protection for granted.

For Diaspora Jews who support non-Jewish causes, that is all fine and dandy, but it should be done without expecting any level of reciprocation. The last 16 months have shown us that Diaspora Jews cannot count on non-Jewish groups for any type of meaningful support or aid.

Even worse, politicians who have typically supported Jews, Jewish communities, and the Jewish state have shown their true colors by courting Muslims in their countries. Not all Muslims are bad actors, but many are purely antisemitic and hold prejudices against non-Muslims. Even the leftist Europeans who think that “welcoming” Muslims into their countries, cities, and political parties will be rudely awakened when one day some of these Muslims revolt, for this was always their intention.

It was just a matter of time and a willful naïveté by leftist Europeans to ignore the blatant writing on the wall. Some people cannot bring themselves to agree with or simply acknowledge what I am saying, for fear/shame of being labeled “Islamophobic.” That is buffoonery. We should absolutely be frightened by a death cult that openly celebrates destruction in the name of its religion. The way they see it: the more death and destruction, the merrier.

Meanwhile, some Diaspora Jews are going through a “moral bewilderment” with Israel — especially those who identify as liberal, progressive, and peace-loving.

“We are being forced to reimagine our relationship to Israel, to Judaism, to our own long-held identities,” wrote one of these Jews. “I think this is a necessary and crucial process. It’s also painful, in the way it’s always painful to have to rethink the realities you’ve grown up with and that have shaped your identity.”¹

The only relationships that these Diaspora Jews should be reimagining are the ones with the “liberal, progressive, and peace-loving” folks. It is not Israel that has changed; it has always been a country for and by Jews.

Rather, it is the so-called “progressive” circles in which these Jews have found themselves that have revealed their true colors. The moral bewilderment they feel is not a result of Israel abandoning its values, but of their own ideological allies abandoning them. The institutions, communities, and movements they once believed stood for justice and human rights have instead rushed to excuse or even justify the mass slaughter of Jews, exposing a deep rot within their moral framework.

For years, many liberal Diaspora Jews embraced a worldview in which their Jewish identity could be seamlessly integrated into broader “progressive” causes. They believed that their commitment to social justice would be reciprocated, that by championing the struggles of others, their own struggle would be acknowledged.

But October 7th exploded this delusion. Suddenly, the same people who claimed to fight for “the oppressed” had no words of solidarity for Jewish victims of terror. Instead, they engaged in moral gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable.

The real reckoning for these Jews should not be with Israel, but with the uncomfortable truth that their ideological allies have failed them. If the Jewish homeland defending itself against a genocidal attack makes them question their relationship with Israel, perhaps they should ask why their political and social circles have made them feel that way in the first place.

The painful process they are undergoing is not about Israel changing; it is about them waking up to the reality that their progressive identity was built on a foundation that was never truly inclusive of Jews.

Instead of retreating into doubt about their connection to Israel, these Jews should be reexamining their alliances. Who stands with them when Jews are slaughtered? Who speaks out unequivocally for Jewish survival? Who applies the same moral standards to Jewish lives as they do to others?

For many, this is an identity crisis; for others, it is an overdue awakening. The only real question is what they will do with this newfound clarity. Will they continue to seek approval from movements that have abandoned them? Or will they finally stand unapologetically with their own people?

---

1. Brown, Harriet. “The Moral Bewilderment of American Jews.” Hebrew Lessons.