Netanyahu’s Dangerous Gamble: How Israel May Have Nurtured Hamas for Political Gain
The Calculated Strategy Behind Netanyahu’s Approach to Hamas and Its Far-Reaching Consequences
Israeli journalist Amnon Abramovich did not mince words in his televised exposé, squarely blaming Prime Minister Netanyahu for turning a blind eye to Hamas, a strategy Abramovich argues was driven by Netanyahu's political ambitions.
Abramovich accused Netanyahu of deliberately ignoring Hamas’s growing influence, hoping to use it to undermine any peace efforts with the Palestinians.
"Netanyahu’s gamble was reckless—an attempt to harness Hamas for political gain that spiraled beyond control as the group’s power grew," Abramovich stated, citing reports from the Israeli Intelligence Service (Shin Bet) about Hamas’s rise.
In a 2019 statement to his party's Knesset members, Netanyahu openly admitted to a strategy that defied conventional wisdom. He revealed that "favoring the terrorist group" was, in fact, a calculated move to sabotage the prospect of a future Palestinian state.
"Anyone who wants to block the creation of a Palestinian state must support the growth of Hamas and fund it," Netanyahu declared. These words were echoed in Haaretz, where Netanyahu confirmed that backing Hamas was part of his plan to prevent Palestinian unity.
This admission cast a dark shadow over long-held suspicions that Hamas was more than a regional rogue actor—it suggested the group might be a pawn in a larger geopolitical game, one in which Israel’s Mossad might play a hidden role.
The seeds of this relationship stretch back to the Oslo Accords in 1993. Signed by Israeli Prime Minister Isaac Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, the accords were designed to pave the way for a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
However, they threatened a broader Zionist vision of Greater Israel, prompting a reaction from Israel’s intelligence services. In 1994, reports from the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies indicated that Israel indirectly funded Palestinian Islamic groups, including Hamas, to weaken Arafat's position.
By 1987, Hamas had emerged as a rival to the secular Palestinian Authority, escalating the conflict. In the years that followed, Israel’s strategies focused on dividing Palestinian factions rather than fostering peace, as evidenced by reports of economic policies that indirectly benefited Hamas, particularly in Gaza.
When Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli extremist in 1995, the peace process fell into disarray, with subsequent Israeli governments under Netanyahu shifting toward a harder stance that some argue allowed Hamas to thrive.
Amnon Abramovich's claims added fuel to this growing narrative. In his 2017 documentary, Abramovich interviewed former Mossad officers, with one stating that "Hamas was never just a local phenomenon—it was always part of a broader strategy, whether consciously or unconsciously manipulated by outside powers."
This view echoes analyses by Middle East experts, including former CIA operative Robert Baer, who suggested that Hamas's radicalization was partly a result of Israeli strategies to divide Palestinian factions.
As events unfold, this narrative grows ever more complex. Hamas's recent attacks have marked the most audacious escalation since 2007, with rockets reaching as far as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Israel’s response was swift, but questions remain about whether the country was caught off guard due to Netanyahu’s political maneuvering, despite warnings from Egyptian intelligence about Hamas’s imminent offensive.
The stakes are high, with the potential for a wider regional conflict involving Hezbollah and Iran’s military allies. Netanyahu, ever the political strategist, could see this crisis as an opportunity to shore up his faltering position, but the cost could be a fractured Middle East.
Internal dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s handling of the situation is mounting. The failure to heed Egyptian warnings about Hamas’s offensive has deepened the sense of crisis. As public opinion sours, Netanyahu’s political career may be nearing its end, with the prospect of new elections and criminal charges hanging over him.
At the heart of it all lies the murky relationship between Israel and Hamas. The revelations now coming to light suggest that the dynamics of this conflict may be far more complex—and troubling—than previously understood.