Symposium The Role of Ideology in the Conduct of Islamist Actors

Key Findings:

This symposium, held in the wake of Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack, examined how religious ideology influences the behavior and decision-making of Islamist actors such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Experts debated whether these groups act out of revolutionary ideological motives or pragmatic strategic interests, or a combination of both. The symposium underscored the need for a recalibrated understanding of Islamist actors: ideology is not a secondary factor but a central, driving force—intertwined with strategic behavior. Failing to internalize this risks repeating past mistakes, particularly in anticipating and countering threats.

The consensus is that ideology and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. Islamist actors often use pragmatic tactics to achieve ideological goals. Misinterpreting ideological actors as merely strategic leads to intelligence and analytical failures—such as the misreading of Hamas’ intentions before the October 7 attack.

Criticism of Israeli and Western analysis: Overreliance on Western rationality, lack of language skills, and undervaluing Middle Eastern cultural understanding result in flawed assessments. Many academics and intelligence analysts underestimate religious beliefs, viewing them as facades for material gain, a view some scholars at the symposium now reject.

Some participants argue Hamas' attack stemmed from deeply held jihadist beliefs, not just tactical goals like disrupting Israeli-Saudi normalization. Others maintain Hamas believed it was making a strategic move based on calculations of regional dynamics and fading relevance of the Palestinian issue—not necessarily expecting to destroy Israel.

Non-state groups (e.g., Hamas, Hezbollah) are often more ideologically motivated and willing to take greater risks. Iran plays a longer ideological game; Hamas felt more immediate urgency. Hezbollah’s involvement in recent conflict is seen by some as ideologically driven, despite its traditionally cautious, strategic posture.

A recurring theme is that Western and Israeli analysts often fail to take threats literally, and downplay them as rhetorical or impossible to execute. This "psychological defense mechanism" stems from a reluctance to accept that some actors genuinely seek Israel’s destruction.

Policy Implications

Short-Term: Military readiness must address ideological threats without relying on assumptions of rational restraint. Likewise, peace initiatives have limitations — economic or political incentives alone will not change ideological goals.

Long-Term: Intelligence and academia must prioritize language, cultural fluency, and ideological literacy. Alternative actors (e.g., Palestinian Authority) must be engaged to counter ideological groups like Hamas. Pragmatism should not be equated with moderation—groups may adjust tactics without changing beliefs.