Militant Groups in the Middle East- End of War in Gaza Negotiations

This posting is inspired from the current Negotiations (Phase1) to end the War in Gaza

A concise history of militant groups from the Middle East — and how they shape Gaza today is the topic of this posting. 

This post traces the origins, evolution, and tactics of several violent non-state actors often labeled “terrorist organizations” — focusing on Hamas, ISIS (Islamic State), and Hezbollah — and then explains how their histories connect to the current humanitarian and security crisis in Gaza. 

I will also explain why “Antifa” is different from these groups and how labels and designations differ across governments.

---

1) Quick note on terms and labels

“Terrorist organization” is a political and legal label that different states and international bodies apply unevenly. Groups that use political violence, target civilians, or pursue insurgent strategies may be labeled “terrorist” by some governments and “resistance movement” or “militia” by others. Where I state formal designations below, I cite authoritative sources. Council on Foreign Relations+1

---

2) Hamas — Origins, Evolution, Tactics, and Gaza today

Origins & ideology. Hamas (Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah — the Islamic Resistance Movement) grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood in the late 1980s during the First Intifada. It combined Palestinian nationalism with Sunni Islamist ideology and established both social-service networks and an armed wing (the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades). Wilson Center+1

Rise to power. After years of rivalry with Fatah, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and took full control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, after violent clashes with Fatah. Since then it has governed Gaza while also running an armed campaign against Israel. Many countries, including the U.S. and the EU, formally classify Hamas (or its armed wing) as a terrorist organization. Council on Foreign Relations+1

Tactics and strategy. Hamas combines guerrilla and asymmetric tactics (rocket attacks, tunnels, raids, and suicide attacks historically) with political governance and social services. Its military actions have provoked large Israeli military responses, which in turn shape Gaza’s humanitarian situation. Analysts emphasize that Hamas’ continued militarization, hostage-taking, and use of population centers for military infrastructure are central drivers of repeated escalations. Wilson Center+1

How this connects to Gaza now. Gaza’s dire humanitarian indicators today — mass displacement, a collapsed health system, and severe malnutrition among children — are the consequence of prolonged conflict, blockades, and intermittent large-scale military campaigns that followed major Hamas attacks (notably the October 7, 2023 offensive) and Israel’s sustained operations thereafter. Humanitarian studies and UN agencies warn of acute child malnutrition and catastrophic shortages of food, fuel, medicine, and safe water. These outcomes are shaped both by Hamas’s governance and military posture and by Israel’s security and blockade policies. AP News+2The Guardian+2

---

3) ISIS (Islamic State) — How a Territorial Proto-State Emerged and Fractured

Roots & rise. ISIS evolved from Islamist insurgent networks in Iraq and Syria, drawing on the chaos after the 2003 Iraq war and Syria’s civil war. It declared a “caliphate” in 2014 after seizing large swathes of Iraq and Syria and used extreme violence, media-savvy propaganda, and pseudo-state institutions to sustain itself. Wilson Center+1

Peak and rapid collapse. By 2014–2015 ISIS controlled major cities (Mosul, Raqqa) and resources. A multinational military campaign, local ground forces, and internal fractures eroded ISIS’s territorial control — by late 2017/2019 it had lost almost all its “caliphate” territory. But its ideology and decentralized affiliates persisted across the region and beyond, inspiring attacks and insurgent cells. Wilson Center+1

Legacy. ISIS reshaped regional security doctrine: governments ramped up counter-terrorism cooperation, but also faced persistent insurgency, lone-actor attacks, and ideology-driven affiliates in Africa, South-East Asia, and beyond. The lesson for Gaza and the broader Levant is that territorial defeat does not immediately erase organizational capacity, networks, or the socio-political grievances that feed extremism. ICCT+1

---

4) Hezbollah — A hybrid of Party, State Actor Proxy, and Militia

Founding & purpose. Hezbollah emerged in Lebanon in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion. It combined a Shia Islamist ideology, Iranian backing (political, financial, and military), and a local social-service network. Over decades it grew into a powerful political party and a well-armed force that some analysts compare to a state within a state. Wikipedia+1

Capabilities & regional role. Hezbollah has both a political bloc in Lebanon and a sophisticated military arm. It fought a major war with Israel in 2006 and later became deeply involved in regional conflicts (notably supporting the Assad regime in Syria). Its relationship with Iran and role in the “Axis of Resistance” make it a major player in regional geopolitics. Wikipedia+1

Recent changes. Large Israeli operations in 2024 and subsequent regional shifts reportedly weakened some of Hezbollah’s frontline infrastructure; negotiated ceasefires and diplomatic pressure have periodically pushed changes in deployment. Nevertheless, Hezbollah remains a central security and political actor in Lebanon and an important factor in any broader Israel–Lebanon or Israel–Gaza calculations. Wikipedia+1

---

5) Antifa — why it’s categorically different (and why debates over designation matter)

What Antifa is. “Antifa” (anti-fascist) is a broad, decentralized ideological tendency, not a single hierarchical organization. It includes autonomous local groups and individuals who adopt direct-action tactics against groups they identify as fascist or racist. Historically, much of Antifa’s activity has been protests, property damage, and street clashes rather than the sustained paramilitary campaigns or transnational terrorism associated with ISIS or Hezbollah. Major academic and conflict-monitoring organizations emphasize the decentralized nature of Antifa. ACLED+1

Designation debates. In September 2025, the U.S. White House announced a policy framing Antifa as a domestic terrorist threat — a political and legal move that generated controversy because Antifa lacks centralized command and the term covers a wide range of actors and tactics. Whether a movement is designated as “terrorist” has real legal consequences (surveillance, prosecutions, penalties), and such labels are inherently political. Comparisons between Antifa and hierarchical, transnational violent organizations like ISIS or Hezbollah are therefore misleading without careful distinctions. The White House+1

---

6) How history, governance, and external actors fuse into cycles of violence

Three structural dynamics recur across these examples and help explain why Gaza’s crisis has become so protracted:

1. Partial statehood and governance gaps. Groups that provide social services and political order (Hamas, Hezbollah) gain local legitimacy — but when they also maintain armed wings, they invite military responses that disproportionately affect civilians. Council on Foreign Relations+1

2. External backing and regional geopolitics. State patrons (notably Iran’s ties to Hezbollah and parts of Hamas’ support network) and rivalries among regional powers amplify conflicts and create proxy dynamics that are harder to resolve diplomatically. Council on Foreign Relations+1

3. Humanitarian consequences of counter-insurgency and blockades. Repeated military campaigns, interdiction of goods, and sieges produce long-term civilian harm (collapsed health systems, food insecurity, displacement). Gazans’ current levels of child malnutrition and mortality documented in recent studies are a direct outcome of these compounding effects. AP News+1

---

7) The immediate picture in Gaza (what the data says, as of October 2025)

• Independent studies and UN agencies report catastrophic outcomes: massive displacement, overwhelmed hospitals, and acute child malnutrition reaching emergency levels. These reports explicitly link worsening health outcomes to the prolonged blockade, restricted aid access, and continued hostilities. The Guardian+1

• International attempts to deliver aid (including maritime flotillas) have met interdiction and diplomatic rows, reflecting the persistent tension between security concerns and humanitarian need. Reuters

• The conflict is not only a local law-and-order issue: it is a tinderbox of regional politics, legal debates about occupation and resistance, and competing narratives about who bears responsibility for civilian suffering. Al Jazeera+1

---

8) What this history suggests about prospects for peace or de-escalation

• Military victory rarely ends insurgency. Territorial defeat (as with ISIS) can remove a proto-state but not eliminate ideology, networks, or the drivers of grievance. Sustained political solutions — local governance, economic recovery, and regional diplomacy — are essential to prevent recurrence. Wilson Center+1

• Labels matter but don’t replace politics. Designating an actor “terrorist” shapes legal tools and public framing; it does not by itself resolve root causes such as occupation, displacement, state collapse, or foreign intervention. The debate over “Antifa” in the U.S. shows how politicized designations can become. The White House+1

• Humanitarian access must be protected. Independent humanitarian corridors, respected by all parties, and durable ceasefires that allow rebuilding are preconditions for stabilizing populations and reducing recruitment into violent groups. Recent studies on child malnutrition in Gaza underline the urgency. AP News+1

---

9) Takeaway 

The histories of Hamas, ISIS, and Hezbollah show how mixtures of ideology, social services, external patrons, and military capability can create powerful non-state actors whose actions ripple far beyond local battlefields. The current catastrophe in Gaza is the tragic intersection of those histories with heavy-handed security responses, blockade dynamics, and a breakdown in humanitarian access. Any sustainable path forward requires a political strategy that addresses security concerns and the deep socio-economic and political grievances that feed cycles of violence. Council on Foreign Relations+2Wilson Center+2

---

Further reading 

• Council on Foreign Relations — backgrounders on Hamas and Hezbollah. Council on Foreign Relations+1

• Wilson Center timeline on ISIS. Wilson Center

• Congressional Research Service review of Islamic State affiliates. Congress.gov

• Recent reporting and studies on Gaza’s humanitarian crisis (AP, The Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera). Al Jazeera+3AP News+3The Guardian+3

---

Meanwhile, here’s a current summary of what is happening now in the Gaza negotiations, what’s likely ahead, and what the key risks are. 

Where the Negotiations Are Now—and What It Might Take to End the War

As of October 2025, the parties involved in the Gaza conflict—Israel, Hamas, and several mediating states (notably Egypt, Qatar, and the U.S.)—have made a notable breakthrough. They agreed on the “first phase” of a ceasefire‐plan that includes:

• The release of a number of hostages in exchange for some Palestinian prisoners. The Times of India+3AP News+3TIME+3

• A withdrawal of Israeli forces from most of Gaza, tied to the cessation of major hostilities. AP News+2TIME+2

• Provisions for humanitarian aid to flow more steadily into Gaza. AP News+2TIME+2

This deal is framed publicly as just phase one—a stepping stone toward something broader, more durable. TIME+2Axios+2

---

What Still Remains Unresolved / Risk Factors

This first phase brings hope, but there are several serious open issues and risks that could derail things:

1. Lack of clarity on the later phases.
   The ultimate goals—full ceasefire, permanent end to hostilities, final withdrawal, the governance structure for Gaza, how Hamas will be treated or disarmed, how reconstruction happens—are not yet solidified. Disagreements over these could unravel commitments made in earlier phases. Politico+2TIME+2

2. Security concerns.
   Israel emphasizes its need for guarantees that Hamas will not use pauses to rearm, launch attacks, or rebuild military capacity. Ensuring safe, verifiable security arrangements will be difficult in practice. Hamas, on its side, wants guarantees that civilian safety and infrastructure won’t be destroyed, and that relief will be sustainable.

3. Hostages and prisoners: who, when, and how many.
   The exact lists of hostages, their condition (living or deceased), the timing of their release, and which Palestinian prisoners will be freed remain contested. These details are among the most emotionally loaded and politically sensitive parts of the deal. The Times of India+2Axios+2

4. Humanitarian implementation challenges.
   Increased aid, movement of people, restoration of infrastructure—all require safe access, coordination, oversight, and enough trust from all sides. Regardless of formal deals, interruptions in supply lines, damage to crossings, or breakdowns in local order threaten progress.

5. Political resistance domestically and regionally.
   In both Israel and among Palestinian factions (including Hamas and its rivals), there are hardliners who may oppose aspects of any deal perceived as overly concessional. External pressure (from other states, NGOs, international bodies) also plays a role. The durability of any agreement depends partly on whether enough political actors agree to “live with” the compromise.

---

What Needs to Happen for a Sustainable End

Drawing on past negotiation cycles and these current dynamics, the following are essential for any peace arrangement to hold:

• Comprehensive agreement over time, not just episodic ceasefires. Phase-by-phase progress is promising, but without a roadmap to a final status it’s all too easy for deals to collapse.

• Clear governance arrangements for Gaza. Who will govern? Under what legal/political framework? What oversight will there be? Is Hamas disarmed and replaced, reformed, or integrated?

• Guarantees (including international observers or guarantees) for security and ceasefire compliance. Trust is very low; mechanisms like monitoring, phased devolution of control, or international peacekeeping might be necessary.

• Reconstruction and humanitarian relief should be rapid, sufficient, and equitable. If infrastructure remains destroyed, essential services fail, or aid is blocked, civilian suffering continues, which breeds more anger and resentment.

• Inclusion of broader stakeholders. Other Palestinian factions, civil society, regional states (neighboring Arab countries, global powers), and international organizations must all feel they have a stake in the deal; excluding people tends to heighten risk of spoilers.

---

Final Thought

The current negotiation marks perhaps the most promising moment in over two years of conflict. If fully implemented, the first phase could relieve a lot of immediate suffering—hostages come home, aid flows, some military pressure eases. But the war will only truly end when there is a credible, enforceable, and trusted framework for peace: one that addresses political grievances, secures rights, ensures accountability, and lays the groundwork for reconstruction and stability.

Whether this delicate equilibrium can be maintained depends on all parties honoring both the letter and spirit of agreements, and on external actors helping, not obstructing, the path toward reconciliation. The coming weeks will be decisive.