The Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, marked a grim milestone as the deadliest terrorist assault in the nation’s history. The ensuing conflict has inflicted immense suffering on Palestinians, with a staggering death toll exceeding 15,000 and expected to climb amidst Israel’s determined campaign to dismantle Hamas. The scale of the attack and the ferocity of the response beg a crucial question: Why Did Hamas Attack Israel? Especially considering the devastating repercussions they and the Palestinian people would inevitably face. By examining statements from Hamas leadership, intelligence gleaned from captured documents, and the organization’s established patterns of behavior, we can begin to understand the complex motivations behind this pivotal and tragic event.
One of Hamas’s primary objectives was unequivocally to inflict maximum casualties on Israelis. Reports from The Washington Post, citing instructions discovered on deceased Hamas militants, revealed a chilling directive: “Kill as many people and take as many hostages as possible.” Hamas fighters were equipped with weapons designed for mass destruction within civilian areas, including thermobaric grenades capable of igniting rapid and devastating fires inside homes. Furthermore, the militants carried ample ammunition, provisions, and maps, suggesting preparations for a sustained incursion into Israel and the potential for even greater bloodshed.
This desire for carnage is intertwined with a deep-seated quest for revenge, fueled by what Hamas perceives as decades of Israeli aggression. This includes past Israeli military operations in Gaza, the ongoing occupation of the West Bank, the detention of Hamas leaders, and the blockade and bombardments of Gaza. Prior to October 7th, many Israelis lived with a sense of detachment from the Palestinian plight. Hamas sought to shatter this complacency, bringing the conflict directly and violently into Israeli lives, forcing a brutal reckoning with the unresolved Palestinian issue.
However, while animosity towards Israel is a foundational element of Hamas’s ideology, it doesn’t fully explain the timing and scale of the October 7th attack. A critical piece of the puzzle lies in Hamas’s perception that its prior attempts at political moderation yielded negligible benefits. In 2017, Hamas unveiled a revised charter, seemingly signaling a shift towards pragmatism by acknowledging a two-state solution as a potential interim arrangement. While this updated charter still retained deeply antagonistic elements, it represented a notable departure from the group’s 1988 charter, which fundamentally rejected any reconciliation with Israel.
Some analysts, both within Israel and internationally, interpreted Hamas’s governance of Gaza for nearly two decades as a moderating influence. There was a growing belief that Hamas recognized the counterproductive nature of large-scale attacks and had, to some extent, embraced a strategy of de-escalation. Prior to October 7th, Hamas had demonstrably curtailed its own rocket attacks and even taken steps to suppress other factions within Gaza, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), from violating fragile ceasefires. Hamas notably refrained from joining PIJ’s conflicts with Israel in August 2022 and May 2023.
Whether this apparent shift was a calculated deception to mask preparations for the October 7th attack remains a subject of debate. Regardless, Israel and the international community failed to reciprocate Hamas’s perceived moderation with meaningful policy changes. While there were limited economic concessions and some acknowledgements of Hamas’s governing role in Gaza, these were overshadowed by inflammatory rhetoric from far-right Israeli politicians and escalating violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Both 2021 and 2022 became the deadliest years on record for Palestinians, as the Netanyahu government authorized further settlement expansion and settler violence against Palestinians surged.
The Israeli government, particularly under Prime Minister Netanyahu, consistently conveyed its contempt for Hamas. Netanyahu publicly dismissed Hamas’s revised charter, advocated for defunding UNRWA, and empowered far-right figures known for their anti-Palestinian stances. This lack of positive reinforcement for moderation likely amplified the appeal of a dramatic, large-scale attack in the eyes of Hamas leadership. As Hamas official Basem Naim stated in an interview after October 7th, “We knew there was going to be a violent reaction. . . . But we didn’t choose this road while having other options. We have no options.”
Hamas’s decision-making was also likely influenced by a concern over declining popular support within Gaza. Since the imposition of a near-permanent siege in 2007, Israel has exerted significant control over essential resources entering Gaza, including electricity, food, and water. Gaza has endured prolonged electricity shortages, with residents experiencing blackouts for half of each day since 2019. Chronic water scarcity plagues the region, with over 97% of water in Gazan homes deemed undrinkable due to dilapidated infrastructure. The economic situation is equally dire, with over 70% of Gazan families reliant on humanitarian aid to meet basic needs. Unable to provide basic services or improve the persistently high 45% unemployment rate, Hamas faced challenges in maintaining legitimacy through governance.
Compounding this, the continued activity of groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which remained actively engaged in armed resistance against Israel, posed a challenge to Hamas’s image as the leading force of Islamist resistance. Faced with dwindling public approval and lacking avenues to bolster its standing through effective governance, Hamas seemingly opted to project an image of revolutionary strength through a spectacular attack, both to Palestinians and to a global audience.
Hamas leaders likely anticipated that Israel’s forceful response would, paradoxically, boost their popularity. Khaled Mashal, a prominent Hamas political figure, remarked, “We know very well the consequences of our operation on October 7 . . . No nation is liberated without sacrifices.” Another Hamas leader, speaking two weeks after the attacks, stated, “We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”
Employing a state’s disproportionate reaction to one’s advantage is a classic tactic of insurgency. While public opinion polls suggest that many Gazans harbor grievances towards Hamas, the overwhelming Israeli military response is likely to galvanize support for the group. Faced with a choice between Hamas and perceived Israeli aggression, many Palestinians may rally behind Hamas. Hamas has demonstrated a willingness to subject Gazan civilians to immense suffering to advance its objectives, as evidenced by its practice of locating military assets near civilian infrastructure, including allegedly placing a command center beneath a major hospital. The resulting devastation and civilian casualties in Gaza serve Hamas’s propaganda narrative, portraying Israel as a brutal aggressor and obscuring Hamas’s own role in instigating the conflict.
Furthermore, Hamas’s attack aimed to undermine its rival, the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs the West Bank. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has long advocated for negotiation and cooperation with Israel. This approach, already losing credibility among Palestinians prior to October 7th, is now further discredited in the face of Israel’s devastating military response. This strengthens Hamas’s claim to leadership of the Palestinian national movement, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank and among the broader Palestinian diaspora. With Abbas, an aging leader in reportedly poor health, and a lack of clarity regarding PA succession, Hamas seeks to capitalize on the PA’s perceived weakness and seize a more dominant position in Palestinian politics.
Hamas’s actions also align with the broader regional ambitions of its patron, Iran. Tehran provides Hamas with funding, weapons, and training. While the extent of Iran’s direct involvement in planning the October 7th attack remains unclear, its strategic interests are undoubtedly served by the current conflict. Prior to the attacks, there was growing momentum towards normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, a development that would have further isolated Iran. Moreover, Iran’s support for the Assad regime in Syria had damaged its standing among many Arabs. The October 7th attack effectively derailed normalization efforts and shifted regional attention squarely onto the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of Iran being marginalized, Arab public opinion, at least, is now focused on Israeli actions in Gaza, potentially bolstering Iran’s image as a staunch supporter of Palestinian resistance. For both Hamas and Iran, the shift in regional focus away from issues like the Syrian civil war and towards Israeli actions in Gaza represents a strategic victory.
Whether Hamas will ultimately achieve its broader objectives remains uncertain. The regional discourse has undeniably shifted in its favor, and its standing among many Palestinians has likely been bolstered, at least in the short term. However, Hamas has taken a significant gamble. Israeli military operations pose an existential threat to the group’s leadership and its control over Gaza. Even if Hamas emerges politically strengthened, the Palestinian people are enduring a catastrophic cost.
Daniel Byman is a senior fellow with the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., and a professor at Georgetown University. Mackenzie Holtz is a former intern with the International Security Program at CSIS.
