{

Four days passed as Palestinian militias fired hundreds of rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory. Normal expectations would point to Hamas as the author of such attacks, the group that has led the enclave since 2007. This time, however, the militants did not rely on Hamas. The responsibility appeared to lie with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group with more than six additional years of operational history compared with Hamas. Who is this group, the second largest armed faction in Gaza, and what drove them to launch more than 600 rounds in four days? Here is a concise overview of Islamic Jihad and the dynamics behind its actions.

For the disappointed

Islamic Jihad emerged in the early 1980s, founded by Fathi Shiqaqi and Abdulaziz Odeh to mobilize a faction that felt let down by the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat. After the first intifada, the group adopted a firm stance against negotiations and pursued the objective of ending Israeli rule. While it shares a military focus with other Gaza militias, its approach is less political and more dedicated to armed conflict. Estimates from the CIA in 2021 placed the group’s armed strength in the range of roughly one thousand to several thousand fighters. Islamic Jihad maintains a significant arsenal that includes rockets, mortars, anti-tank missiles, and other heavy weapons, though it does not publish exact inventories.

Iran-financed

Israel’s internal security service, Shin Bet, has noted that Tehran has long supported the two main Gaza militias by providing rockets, anti-tank weapons, and mortar rounds. Islamic Jihad has operated from foreign hubs in Beirut and Tehran, receiving tens of millions of dollars in support from Iran. While Hamas has at times distanced itself from Tehran over competing interests, Islamic Jihad has continued and even strengthened its ties to the Iranian regime, seen as a longstanding adversary of Israel in the region.

The strained relationship with Hamas

Although Hamas has backed military responses from time to time, it also seeks to limit violence to protect Gaza’s civilian population. Islamic Jihad has often taken a more direct military posture, facing Israel in confrontations that Hamas may view as too risky for its broader political and humanitarian goals. Hamas works to safeguard the livelihoods of the roughly two million people in Gaza, who live under challenging conditions, including movement restrictions and housing needs. In this context, strategic calculations matter: sustaining international support, preserving local resources, and avoiding a broader regional spread of conflict. During recent offensives, decisions about war or ceasefire have involved coordination among groups rather than decisions by any single faction alone.

Goal: Destruction of Israel

Islamic Jihad has endured as a veteran player across more than four decades, continuing to pursue its original mission of resisting Israeli occupation. While it remains most active in Gaza, its historical reach and external backing shape its operations. The Israeli military has prioritized targeting militant infrastructure while avoiding broader escalation that could provoke wider international condemnation. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas are designated as terrorist organizations by Israel, the United States, and several European allies, a status that frames how each side is viewed by regional and global audiences and influences the scope of international reactions.

In this landscape, analysts emphasize that the Gaza Strip hosts a complex web of actors whose closer look reveals overlapping objectives and divergent tolerances for risk. The dynamics among militant groups, their external sponsors, and political leaders in Gaza create a shifting balance that can lead to sudden escalations or strategic pauses. Observers advise paying attention to the timing of attacks, the source of funding, and the channels through which decisions to escalate or de-escalate are made. Attribution remains a key question in each cycle of firing, with the aim of understanding who gains, who loses, and what comes next for residents of both sides of the border. [Attribution: security briefings and regional analysts summarize the linked factors shaping these events.]