Hamas struggles with tribal defiance and Iran uncertainty in Gaza
CAIRO/LONDON: Short of commanders, deprived of much of its tunnel network and unsure of support from its ally Iran, Hamas is battling to survive in Gaza in the face of rebellious local clans and relentless Israeli military pressure.
Hamas fighters are operating autonomously under orders to hold out as long as possible but the Islamist group is struggling to maintain its grip as Israel openly backs tribes opposing it, three sources close to Hamas said.
With a humanitarian crisis in Gaza intensifying international pressure for a ceasefire, Hamas badly needs a pause in the fighting, one of the people said.
Not only would a ceasefire offer respite to weary Gazans, who are growing increasingly critical of Hamas, but it would also allow the Islamist group to crush rogue elements, including some clans and looters who have been stealing aid, the person said.
To counter the immediate threat, Hamas has sent some of its top fighters to kill one rebellious leader, Yasser Abu Shabab, but so far he has remained beyond their reach in the Rafah area held by Israeli troops, according to two Hamas sources and two other sources familiar with the situation.
Reuters spoke to 16 sources including people close to Hamas, Israeli security sources and diplomats who painted a picture of a severely weakened group, retaining some sway and operational capacity in Gaza despite its setbacks, but facing stiff challenges.
Hamas is still capable of landing blows: it killed seven Israeli soldiers in an attack in southern Gaza on Tuesday. But three diplomats in the Middle East said intelligence assessments showed it had lost its centralised command and control and was reduced to limited, surprise attacks.
An Israeli military official estimated Israel had killed 20,000 or more Hamas fighters and destroyed or rendered unusable hundreds of miles of tunnels under the coastal strip. Much of Gaza has been turned to rubble in 20 months of conflict.
One Israeli security source said the average age of Hamas fighters was 'getting lower by the day'. Israeli security sources say Hamas is recruiting from hundreds of thousands of impoverished, unemployed, displaced young men.
Hamas does not disclose how many of its fighters have died.
'They're hiding because they are being instantly hit by planes but they appear here and there, organising queues in front of bakeries, protecting aid trucks, or punishing criminals,' said Essam, 57 a construction worker in Gaza City.
'They're not like before the war, but they exist.'
Asked for comment for this story, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said the group was working for an agreement to end the war with Israel but 'surrender is not an option'.
Hamas remained committed to negotiations and was 'ready to release all prisoners at once', he said, referring to Israeli hostages, but it wanted the killing to stop and Israel to withdraw.
'IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD'
Hamas is a shadow of the group that attacked Israel in 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking another 251 hostage, according to Israeli tallies. Israel's offensive has killed more than 56,000 people, according to Gaza health authorities.
The damage inflicted by Israel is unlike anything Hamas has suffered since its creation, with most of its top military commanders in Gaza killed. Founded in 1987, Hamas had gradually established itself as the main rival of the Fatah faction led by President Mahmoud Abbas and finally seized Gaza from his control in 2007. With a U.S.-brokered truce in the Iran-Israel war holding, attention has switched back to the possibility of a Gaza deal that might end the conflict and release the remaining hostages.
One of the people close to Hamas told Reuters it would welcome a truce, even for a couple of months, to confront the local clans that are gaining influence.
But he said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's terms for ending the war - including Hamas leaders leaving Gaza - would amount to total defeat, and Hamas would never surrender.
'We keep the faith, but in reality it doesn't look good,' the source said.
Yezid Sayigh, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, said he believed Hamas was simply trying to survive. That was not just a physical challenge of holding out militarily, he said, but above all a political one.
'They face being eliminated on the ground in Gaza if the war doesn't stop, but they also face being erased from any governing formula that ends the war in Gaza (if such a thing can be found),' he wrote in response to Reuters' questions.
Palestinian tribes have emerged as part of Israel's strategy to counter Hamas. Netanyahu has said publicly that Israel has been arming clans that oppose Hamas, but has not said which.
One of the most prominent challenges has come from Abu Shabab, a Palestinian Bedouin based in the Rafah area, which is under Israeli control.
Hamas wants Abu Shabab captured, dead or alive, accusing him of collaboration with Israel and planning attacks on the Islamist group, three Hamas sources told Reuters.
Abu Shabab controls eastern Rafah and his group is believed to have freedom of movement in the wider Rafah area. Images on their Facebook page show their armed men organising the entry of aid trucks from the Kerem Shalom crossing.
Announcements by his group indicate that it is trying to build an independent administration in the area, though they deny trying to become a governing authority. The group has called on people from Rafah now in other areas of Gaza to return home, promising food and shelter.
In response to Reuters' questions, Abu Shabab's group denied getting support from Israel or contacts with the Israeli army, describing itself as a popular force protecting humanitarian aid from looting by escorting aid trucks.
It accused Hamas of violence and muzzling dissent.
A Hamas security official said the Palestinian security services would 'strike with an iron fist to uproot the gangs of the collaborator Yasser Abu Shabab', saying they would show no mercy or hesitation and accusing him of being part of 'an effort to create chaos and lawlessness'.
Not all of Gaza's clans are at odds with Hamas, however.
On Thursday, a tribal alliance said its men had protected aid trucks from looters in northern Gaza. Sources close to Hamas said the group had approved of the alliance's involvement.
Israel said Hamas fighters had in fact commandeered the trucks, which both the clans and Hamas denied.
IRAN UNCERTAINTY
Palestinian analyst Akram Attallah said the emergence of Abu Shabab was a result of the weakness of Hamas, though he expected him to fail ultimately because Palestinians broadly reject any hint of collaboration with Israel.
Nevertheless, regardless of how small Abu Shabab's group is, the fact Hamas has an enemy from the same culture was dangerous, he said. 'It remains a threat until it is dealt with.'
Israel's bombing campaign against Iran has added to the uncertainties facing Hamas. Tehran's backing for Hamas played a big part in developing its armed wing into a force capable of shooting missiles deep into Israel.
While both Iran and Israel have claimed victory, Netanyahu on Sunday indicated the Israeli campaign against Tehran had further strengthened his hand in Gaza, saying it would 'help us expedite our victory and the release of all our hostages'.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that great progress was being made on Gaza, adding that the strike on Iran would help get the hostages released.
A Palestinian official close to Hamas said the group was weighing the risk of diminished Iranian backing, anticipating 'the impact will be on the shape of funding and the expertise Iran used to give to the resistance and Hamas'.
One target of Israel's campaign in Iran was a Revolutionary Guards officer who oversaw coordination with Hamas. Israel said Saeed Izadi, whose death it announced on Saturday, was the driving force behind the Iran-Hamas axis.
Hamas extended condolences to Iran on Thursday, calling Izadi a friend who was directly responsible for ties with 'the leadership of the Palestinian resistance'.
A source from an Iran-backed group in the region said Izadi helped develop Hamas capabilities, including how to carry out complex attacks, including rocket launches, infiltration operations, and drones.
Asked about how the Israeli campaign against Iran might affect its support for Hamas, Abu Zuhri said Iran was a large and powerful country that would not be defeated.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Putin says Russia plans to cut military spending from next year
FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting dedicated to the foundation of cultural, educational institutions and museums via a video link at his residence outside Moscow, Russia, June 25, 2025. Sputnik/Gavriil Grigorov/Pool via REUTERS/ File Photo MOSCOW (Reuters) -President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Russia was looking to cut its military expenditure from next year, contrasting that with NATO's plan to ramp up defence spending over the next decade. NATO allies on Wednesday agreed to raise their collective spending goal to 5% of gross domestic product in the next 10 years, citing what they called the long-term threat posed by Russia and the need to strengthen civil and military resilience. In his first reaction to that move, Putin told a press conference in Minsk that the NATO spending would go on "purchases from the USA and on supporting their military-industrial complex", and this was NATO's business, not Russia's. "But now here is the most important thing. We are planning to reduce defence spending. For us, next year and the year after, over the next three-year period, we are planning for this," he said. Putin said there was no final agreement yet between the defence, finance and economy ministries, "but overall, everyone is thinking in this direction. And Europe is thinking about how to increase its spending, on the contrary. So who is preparing for some kind of aggressive actions? Us or them?" Putin's comments are likely to be greeted with extreme scepticism in the West, given that Russia has massively increased defence spending since the start of the Ukraine war. The conflict shows no sign of ending and has actually intensified in recent weeks, as negotiations have made no visible progress towards a ceasefire or a permanent settlement. Putin said Russia appreciated efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to bring an end to the war. "He recently stated that it turned out to be more difficult than it seemed from the outside. Well, that's true," Putin said. Trump said this week that he believed Putin wanted to find a way to settle the conflict, but Ukraine and many of its European allies believe the Kremlin leader has no real interest in a peace deal and is intent on capturing more territory. Putin said Russian and Ukrainian negotiators were in constant contact, and Moscow was ready to return the bodies of 3,000 more Ukrainian soldiers. ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN Russia is seeing a sharp slowdown in economic growth as the budget comes under pressure from falling energy revenues and the central bank is trying to bring down inflation. Russia hiked state spending on national defence by a quarter in 2025 to 6.3% of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level since the Cold War. Defence spending accounts for 32% of total 2025 federal budget expenditure. Defence plants have been working round-the-clock for the past several years, and the state has spent heavily on bonuses to attract soldiers to sign up and on compensation for the families of those who are killed. Putin acknowledged that Russia had paid for the military spending increase with higher inflation. The finance ministry raised the 2025 budget deficit estimate to 1.7% of gross domestic product in April from 0.5% after reducing its energy revenues forecast by 24%, and it plans to tap into fiscal reserves this year to balance the budget. The next draft budget is due to appear in the autumn. (Additional reporting by Lucy Papachristou, Maxim Rodionov, Anastasia Teterevleva, Anastasia Lyrchikova and Elena Fabrichnaya; writing by Mark Trevelyan and Gleb Bryanski; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
London climate week receives boost as Trump policies weigh on New York event
LONDON (Reuters) -London's climate week attracted record attendance, bolstered by the cloud hanging over its sister event in New York in September as the U.S. government turns its back on efforts to stop global warming and tightens entry requirements. The annual London Climate Action Week (LCAW), which ends on Sunday, more than doubled in size compared to the 2024 edition, hosting 700-plus events and more than 45,000 attendees. That was helped by the UK's more robust stance on climate action and support for visitors from developing countries, two dozen business, political and civil society sources told Reuters. "We have gone much bigger on LCAW this year - we are hosting several events and putting considerably more effort (in) than in the past. If we do send someone to New York, it will almost certainly just be an American citizen member of our team," said Alexis McGivern, Head of Stakeholder Engagement at Oxford Net Zero. Under President Donald Trump, the United States has left a global deal to lower climate-damaging carbon emissions, cut development aid, rowed back on environmental standards and moved to slash support for green technologies. By contrast, the British government was present across multiple events during LCAW, with energy secretary Ed Miliband saying he wanted Britain to be a "clean energy superpower" and to "get off the roller coaster of fossil fuel markets". 'YOU CAN TALK FRANKLY' Given the U.S. pushback, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, a U.N. Indigenous Peoples representative and climate change expert, said London offered more freedom to discuss climate change, diversity and human rights. "You can talk frankly with the government of the UK or any government here in London without being afraid of how you get treated, or targeted," she said. Philanthropists and private investors, too, are able to speak more openly without being targeted politically, or risking damaging business interests, she said. "This year the New York Climate Week is going to be very challenging," she said. "Not only to indigenous peoples, but even to governments. There are so many barriers that are making people say, let's act now in London." Among steps taken in London was a push by governments for indigenous peoples' land rights to be better protected and a plan to encourage companies to buy more carbon credits. Chief among the concerns about New York, particularly for civil society representatives, was whether they could even get in. TRAVEL BANS This month, the U.S. banned travellers from countries including Afghanistan, Congo Republic and Somalia - many exposed to rising extreme weather events and in need of the most help - and may yet add more. Ibrahim, whose home country Chad is also on the list, said she would travel using her diplomatic passport but was uncertain if she would be allowed in - a concern flagged by half a dozen other LCAW attendees. Helen Clarkson, CEO of Climate Group, which runs New York Climate Week, said she understood it would be harder for participants from certain countries to attend but that many businesses, governments and civil society were planning to come and were "super up for New York." " is shaping up similar to other years," she said. "This is a critical moment before COP." COP30 will take place in Brazil in November. (Reporting by Virginia Furness and Simon Jessop; Editing by Aidan Lewis)
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
In win for Trump, US Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling in a social media post. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
