Skip to content

What do Nazism and Hamas have in common — and where does the comparison break?

Short answer: on ideology and stated intent, the likeness is real and documented; as a full historical equation, it breaks — and the precise claim is stronger than the slogan. What they share: a hatred of Jews that aims to wipe them out, drawn from the same European sources; a documented historical link; and, in Hamas's founding charter, the clearest stated intent to destroy a people of any actor in the region. Where it breaks: Nazism was a total racial ideology run by a great-power industrial state that murdered six million. Hamas is a non-state movement with the intent but not the capacity. It faces an armed, sovereign state, not a defenseless minority. It is restrained from genocide not by moderation but by a lack of power and an armed target. Saying "Hamas is Nazism" starts a word-fight and gets brushed off as exaggeration. The sourced comparison below holds up even to a hostile reader.

This is one of the most-thrown comparisons online, hurled in both directions ("Hamas are Nazis," "Israel are the new Nazis"). Our How a Word Becomes a Weapon field guide lists the Nazi/Holocaust comparison as a classic weaponized one: it carries huge moral charge but is rarely tested. So we test it, the same way we test everything: what is truly shared, what clearly stands apart, and what we can learn.

What they have in common

1. The charter is antisemitism, not just anti-Israel politics

Hamas's founding document is the 1988 Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement. It is not anti-Israel in the ordinary political way. It is antisemitic in the classic European-conspiracy way. And by its own words, it calls for wiping out a people [VERIFIED via the Covenant text, Avalon Project, Yale Law School]:

  • Article 2 declares Hamas "one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine." The Brotherhood took in European antisemitic writing in the 1930s and 1940s.
  • Article 7 invokes the hadith that on the Day of Judgement the stones and trees will call out, "O Moslem... there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him". That is a call to kill Jews for being Jews, not Israelis as fighters.
  • Article 22 blames Jews for the French Revolution, the Communist revolution, and both World Wars. It says they secretly control world media and finance. It says they founded the Freemasons and the League of Nations. This is the Protocols worldview almost word for word.
  • Article 32 cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by name: "Their plan is embodied in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'". This is the same czarist forgery that fueled Nazi antisemitism.
  • The epigraph heading the Covenant quotes Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
  • Article 13 flatly rejects a negotiated settlement: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

This is documented text, not interpretation. Its core conspiracy is the Jew as secret ruler of the world and mortal enemy. It shares that conspiracy with the Nazi worldview. And it draws on the same forged source.

2. There is a documented historical thread

One standard requires separating what is solid from what is contested.

Documented:

  • Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, met Hitler in Berlin on 28 November 1941. He helped recruit the Waffen-SS "Handschar" division of Bosnian Muslims (1943). And he broadcast antisemitic propaganda in Arabic from Berlin during the war [DOCUMENTED via the German Foreign Ministry minutes and standard histories, incl. Herf and Gensicke].
  • Nazi Germany ran a mass Arabic-language propaganda campaign — millions of leaflets and thousands of hours of shortwave radio. It fused Nazi racial antisemitism with anti-Judaic themes [DOCUMENTED via Jeffrey Herf, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, Yale, 2009].
  • The Protocols spread in Arab and Islamist circles from the 1920s on. And, as noted, Hamas cites the forgery by name in Article 32 [DOCUMENTED].

Debated — how much transmission:

Historians agree these connections existed and mattered. But they disagree about the degree of causation [DISPUTED among historians]. The strong thesis says modern Islamist antisemitism is basically a transplant of Nazi antisemitism (Matthias Küntzel, Jihad and Jew-Hatred, 2007). Other scholars call that view too single-cause. They include Gilbert Achcar (The Arabs and the Holocaust, 2009) and the contributors to Israel Gershoni's Arab Responses to Fascism and Nazism (2014). They document a spectrum of Arab reactions, including principled rejection of Nazi racism. And they trace the region's antisemitism to several sources: older religious motifs; 19th-century European imports (largely Christian) that predate the Nazis; and, above all, the political conflict over Palestine. Even Herf, who documents the Nazi campaign fully, stops short of Küntzel's direct-descent claim.

So the honest phrasing is "historically connected to the Nazi variety." The connection and influence are documented. The direct-descent thesis is contested. Not "a Nazi movement"; not "unrelated." Nazi propaganda was a powerful amplifier and modernizer of an antisemitism that had other roots too.

3. The stated intent to destroy a people

Of every actor this wiki profiles, Hamas's founding text states the intent to wipe out a people most plainly. Look at the intent axis: the will to end Jewish existence in the land, framed as a religious duty. On that axis, the likeness to Nazism is genuine, not just rhetoric.

One point of precision, held to one standard: this intent is shown by Hamas's own words, not by any court ruling. No court has ruled on Hamas's genocidal intent either way. The same is true of the genocide accusation running the other direction [DOCUMENTED]. We report the charter as documentary evidence of intent. We do not dress up an analytical judgment as a legal verdict.

Where the comparison breaks

Intent is not the same as capacity. And these differences are not small details. They are the difference between a stated goal and six million dead. One standard, drawn from the Gaza genocide question:

  • Scale and machinery. On October 7, 2023, Hamas killed roughly 1,200 people in Israel, most of them civilians, and took 251 hostage. It was the largest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. It was also about a thousand times smaller than the industrialized murder of six million [VERIFIED/DOCUMENTED]. Nazism built death camps, railways, and a bureaucracy of extermination. Hamas is a non-state militia.
  • State vs. non-state. Nazism was a great-power state. That is the very thing that turned an ideology into a genocide. Hamas governed a besieged strip. It has never held anything like that concentrated power.
  • The legal record. In May 2024 the ICC prosecutor sought warrants against three Hamas leaders (Sinwar, Deif, Haniyeh) and two Israeli leaders (Netanyahu, Gallant). The charges against the Hamas figures were extermination as a crime against humanity, murder, hostage-taking and sexual violence. These are grave charges. But they are not the distinct legal crime of genocide. Genocide requires a special intent to destroy a protected group as such [VERIFIED via ICC filings and the November 2024 warrants]. (All three Hamas figures have since been killed and their cases closed. The Israeli warrants remain outstanding.) No court or UN body has ruled that Hamas committed genocide. The UN Commission of Inquiry found war crimes on October 7 [DOCUMENTED]. What is documented is genocidal intent, stated by Hamas itself, plus a reality that is capacity-limited.
  • A defenseless minority vs. an armed state. The Jews of Nazi Europe were a defenseless minority under the killers' total power. Hamas's target is a sovereign, nuclear-armed state. That is the decisive difference in structure.

What we learn

Run the universal formula from How a Region Lost Its Minorities: concentrated power + an ideology of enforced homogeneity + a defenseless minority:

  • Ideology of elimination — present (the charter).
  • Concentrated power — absent (a non-state actor, not a great-power state).
  • A defenseless minority — absent (the target is a sovereign, armed state).

The name of the ideology is the variable. The structure is the constant. Hamas's ideology belongs to the same eliminationist family as Nazism. But what produced the Holocaust was the structure — a state's power over a defenseless people — and that is exactly what Hamas lacks. This is a sobering lesson, not one that lets Hamas off the hook: the only thing between the ideology and a genocide is the missing power and the armed target. That is why the stated intent must be taken at face value. It tells you what the ideology would do if the structure were different.

Did the 2017 document change this?

In 2017 Hamas issued A Document of General Principles and Policies, which softened the framing. It drops the Protocols, the gharqad hadith, and the conspiracy material. It states (Paragraph 16) that "its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion." It accepts a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines as "a formula of national consensus" (Paragraph 20). But in the same breath it refuses to recognize Israel (Paragraph 19: "There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity") and keeps armed resistance as "the strategic choice" (Paragraph 25) [VERIFIED via the 2017 document text].

One-standard caveat: the 2017 document did not abrogate the 1988 Charter. It neither mentions nor repeals it [DOCUMENTED]. Hamas presented the new text as an addition, not a replacement. Leaders called the old covenant merely "a historical document" that "will remain in the movement's bookshelf," which scholars read as a deliberate refusal to formally disown it. The softening on paper is real and belongs in the record. So does the rest: Hamas kept armed struggle and non-recognition, distanced itself from its founding text rather than renouncing it, and many of its figures kept up eliminationist rhetoric afterward. Present the change and the non-repeal together. 2017 was a repositioning, not a clean renunciation.

Why the precise claim beats the slur

The temptation is to compress all of this into "Hamas = Nazism." Don't. Not because it's too harsh, but because it's weaker. The equation flattens the real differences. That lets a hostile reader wave the whole thing away as hyperbole. The precise version gives up nothing and can't be dismissed:

Hamas's founding charter is eliminationist antisemitism, historically connected to the Nazi variety, and constitutes the clearest stated genocidal intent of any actor in the region — restrained from genocide not by moderation but by a lack of power and an armed, sovereign target.

Every clause is sourced. That is the claim that indicts.

Related: