Is arming Gazan militias and clans an effective tactic?
Relying on a tribal militia or clan in Gaza may work in the short term. However, in the long term it is unlikely to achieve success.
On June 5 reports confirmed that Israel has been arming and apparently supporting or working with an armed militias in Gaza. Some reports refer to this group as a 'gang.' Other reports describe the leader of the group, Yasser Abu Shabab, as a member of a large clan in southern Gaza. There may be more clans being activated or encouraged than just the one linked to Yasser Abu Shabab. Shabab is not his real name and his name is a nomme de guerre, meaning the full details about this group continue to be shrouded in some mystery.
As the details are shrouded in some fog, it is hard to know if these groups will become an effective anti-Hamas movement. If the groups aregangs that are more well-known for looting and crimes in the past, rather than achieving much, then they will likely not be embraced by the average people. If the groups are made up of clans or even men with links to Bedouin tribes, then it's possible that it will be hard for them to make inroads among other Gazans. It's worth asking whether the new militias in Gaza may be effective and whether history tells us that arming militias is an effective tactic.
First, let's look at what we know about Gaza. It's worth noting that Gaza's population is divided into different groups. There are people who came to Gaza as refugees in 1949 1949, fleeing areas in the Negev that became part of Israel. These people likely make up more than half the population of Gaza. Then there are the people in Gaza who trace their heritage to people who lived in Gaza for hundreds of years before 1948. Those people could be called the original Gazans. They are very different than those called 'refugees.'
The refugees moved to camps such as Khan Younis, Rafah, Maghazai, Deir al-Balah, Jabaliya, Nuseirat and Shati. The camps became the backbone of the Palestinian political and armed movements. They also became a hotbed of Hamas activity in the 1980s and 1990s, and thus a hotbed of terrorist activity. The Gaza Gazans, who predate 1948, are less inclined toward Hamas.
This means that any attempt by the armed militias, gangs or clans will face hurdles in terms of penetrating Gazan society. This is because groups that have roots in one area, may not be popular in others, or they may even alienate people. Back in the 1980s, Gazan families and clans were often involved in violence against one another. This kind of family violence is also common to Arab villages in Israel, where there has been an unprecedented level of gun violence in recent years. This kind of violence means people are often divided and it is hard to unify them, either militarily or politically.
What does history tell us about the challenge that militaries or countries have in recruiting or arming tribes, mercenaries, militias or other types of paramilitary groups? In antiquity, it was not uncommon for tribes to play a role as auxiliaries alongside normal military formations. In addition, it was common that when countries were at war they would often bring along a cavalcade of smaller allies. For instance, when Hannibal was fighting Rome, he had to recruit people from Italy because the actual number of Carthaginians in his army began to decline over time.
By the 15th and 16th century, mercenaries played a major role in fighting amongst the Italian city states. This was the era of Machiavelli, who wrote that mercenaries were often 'disunited, ambitious, [and] undisciplined.' However, mercenaries continued to be used by European states. The British employed Hessian mercenaries and others during the Revolutionary War. These groups generally did not prove effective. In addition, the British and other colonial powers often relied on alliances with tribes to help during wartime or to keep the peace on the frontier. For instance, at the battle of Isandlwana, the British army fighting the Zulus included a number of local native troops. The native troops of the Natal Native Contingent, for instance, included tribes that had fought the Zulus. Henan Cortes, during his conquest of the Aztec empire, allied with groups that had been suppressed by the Aztecs in the past.
In the modern times, many countries have sought to work with tribes and militias. For instance, Lawrence of Arabia worked with tribes that were in revolt against the Ottoman Empire. During the Vietnam war, the US often worked with Montagnard fighters who opposed the Communists. The US also worked with the Hmong people in Laos. Later, during the US occupation in Iraq the US relied on a group called the Sons of Iraq or Sahweh, which were Sunni tribal militias. These were concentrated in Anbar province. Rwanda has long backed groups in eastern Congo who are made up of members of the Tutsi minority.
What this history tells us is that there is a long tradition of working with tribal militias, clans, gangs or mercenaries. However, historically these groups do not have a lasting ability to achieve results. Usually, they are used as part of a policy and then they are usually abandoned when a war is over. In other cases, they simply fade away. The Sunni 'awakening' groups in Iraq, for instance, were starved of resources after the US left Iraq in 2011. Some of the tribes that supported the US continued to play a role. During the ISIS invasion of Iraq, a number of tribes near Haditha helped hold off the ISIS attack. These included the Jughayfa tribe and the Albu Nimr tribe. ISIS persecuted tribal groups that resisted. Key Sunni tribes such as the Shammar opposed ISIS and similar extremists. However, most of these tribes are not able to operate on a national level, they can only help secure certain areas.
The use of tribes and militias usually enable states to carve out areas of influence in states they are intervening in. When there is a chaotic state on the border or a weak state, countries will often seek to arm local groups to help protect their borders. This can backfire because the groups may end up going on rampages and massacring people, or they may escalate a war in a neighboring country. The Vietnam War, for instance, destabilized Cambodia and Laos and this led to great suffering over the years. Minority groups who were exploited as allies often were betrayed. In other situations states will try to co-opt or even work with drug cartels, which is how Mexico's former PRI appeared to have run the country in the 1980s and 1990s. When this broke down the country fell into a brutal cycle of violence as the cartels had become more powerful than some state governments.
Relying on a tribal militia or clan in Gaza may work in the short term. However, in the long term it is unlikely to achieve success. The theory that Israeli soldiers' lives will be saved via this alliance is not necessarily proven by history. Usually, when states think they can provide guns to tribes or militias as a short-term fix, they find out later that they are drawn into more complex wars. For instance, the spillover from the Rwandan genocide has led to fighting in eastern Congo for thirty years. Has the use of proxies and tribes and militias there helped Rwanda or Congo or anyone else in the long term? Probably not. The same can be said for Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia or many other states teetering on failure and civil war. A long civil war in Gaza will likely harm Israel in the long term.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer calls for negotiations after US attacks Iran's nuclear sites
Sir Keir Starmer has urged Iran to return to negotiations after Donald Trump launched US air strikes on the regime's nuclear facilities. The Prime Minister said Iran's nuclear programme is a 'grave threat' which the US military action would 'alleviate'. There is understood to have been no UK involvement in the action, which comes after Sir Keir and Foreign Secretary David Lammy had pushed for a diplomatic solution rather than US action which could further destabilise the region. The Prime Minister said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. 'The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. 'We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Confirms US Launched Strikes Against Iran In Major Escalation Of Middle Eastern War
Donald Trump has confirmed that the US struck Iran overnight and 'obliterated' its key nuclear facilities, marking a major escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict. Just days ago the US president gave himself two weeks to make a decision over joining the war in the Middle East, but clearly chose to strike long before that self-imposed deadline passed. The shocking move comes after UK prime minister Keir Starmer urged Trump not to strike Iran, noting that the region needs de-escalation. He warned that Iran's future held 'either peace or tragedy' and that there were many other targets he could hit unless Tehran agrees to end the war. Tensions soared in the Middle East earlier this month when Israel unexpectedly attacked Iran over fears it was developing nuclear weapons – a claim Iran has denied, insisting that it is only for peaceful purposes. The two countries then continued to exchange fire over the course of a week. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump on his 'bold decision' of striking Iran, which he claimed would alter the course of history. According to CBS News, the States contacted Iran on Saturday to confirm the attacks had come to the US and that it is not looking for regime change. During a three-minute speech confirming the attacks, Trump said: 'Massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. 'Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. 'Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror. 'Tonight I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. 'Iran's key nuclear facilities and been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater – and a lot easier.' — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2025 As Trump Weighs Up Joining Israel's War Against Iran, Here's A Reminder How We Got Here Keir Starmer Urges Donald Trump Not To Bomb Iran Obama Says US Moving 'Dangerously Close' To Autocracy Under Trump
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US strikes Iranian nuclear sites and Tehran warns of ‘everlasting consequences'
The United States has attacked three sites in Iran, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear programme in a risky gambit to weaken a long-time foe which has prompted fears of a wider regional conflict. US President Donald Trump asserted that Iran's key nuclear sites had been 'completely and fully obliterated', in an address to the nation from the White House. There was no independent damage assessment. The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there are no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. It is not clear whether the US will continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a nine-day war with Iran. Mr Trump acted without congressional authorisation, and he warned there will be additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against US forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. Iran's top diplomat, foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, warned in a post on X that the US attacks 'will have everlasting consequences' and that Tehran 'reserves all options' to retaliate. Hours later, Iranian missiles struck areas in northern and central Israel, according to an Israeli rescue service. Initial reports suggested at least 16 people suffered minor injuries and several buildings were damaged. Following the Iranian barrage, Israel's military said it had 'swiftly neutralised' the Iranian missile launchers that had fired, and that it had begun a series of strikes towards military targets in western Iran. Iran has maintained its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, and US intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Mr Trump and Israeli leaders have argued Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The decision to directly involve the US in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel that significantly degraded Iran's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities. But US and Israeli officials have said American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb that only they have been configured to carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear programme buried deep underground. Mr Trump appears to have made the calculation – at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republicans – that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear programme, perhaps permanently. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2025 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Mr Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Mr Trump later added: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Israel announced on Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the US attacks. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation but an update is expected on Sunday morning. But one US official said the attack used bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant that is built deep into a mountain. The weapons are designed to penetrate the ground before exploding. In addition, US submarines launched about 30 Tomahawk missiles, according to another US official. The decision to attack was a risky one for Mr Trump, who won the White House partially on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. But he has vowed he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and he had initially hoped the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear programme peacefully.
