The relationship between Israel and ISIS defies the typical binary of clear-cut enemies. While both sides publicly declare each other as ideological adversaries, the facts on the ground paint a far more complex and strategic picture, one where indirect alignment, shared adversaries, and mutual non-engagement have produced outcomes beneficial to both, particularly to Israel.
At a surface level, the hostility appears genuine. ISIS brands Israel as a “Zionist entity” and a core enemy of Islam, while Israel condemns ISIS as a violent extremist threat to global security. Yet, for much of ISIS’s reign of terror in the Middle East, especially during its peak in Syria and Iraq, it notably avoided engaging Israel in any substantial way.
One of the clearest illustrations of this non-confrontational dynamic was the case of Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Waleed, an ISIS-affiliated faction that operated just kilometres from the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. Despite being within striking distance, the group posed no credible threat to Israel. In fact, multiple reports have documented instances of Israeli hospitals treating fighters from anti-Assad groups, some affiliated with or sympathetic to ISIS.
This apparent military inaction and humanitarian outreach suggest something more than coincidence. Analysts have long speculated that a tacit understanding—if not a formal agreement—may have existed. Under this arrangement, ISIS concentrated on weakening Israel’s strategic foes, such as the Assad regime, Hezbollah, and Iran-backed militias, while Israel largely refrained from direct action against ISIS. Whether or not this was an intentional policy, the resulting dynamic served Israel’s regional objectives.
Shared Enemies, Shared Benefits
The foundation of this indirect convergence lies in a common set of adversaries. Both ISIS and Israel view Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad’s Syria as threats. This convergence has created conditions where ISIS’s violence inadvertently supported Israeli strategic aims:
Depleting the Axis of Resistance: ISIS drew the Syrian army and Hezbollah into gruelling, long-term conflicts that drained their resources and diverted their focus away from Israel.
Operational Cover for Israel: The chaos and instability created by ISIS enabled Israel to carry out airstrikes on Iranian and Hezbollah positions in Syria with limited risk of counteraction.
ISIS and the Palestinian Cause: A Double-Edged Sword
Although ISIS has, in recent years, intensified its rhetoric around the Palestinian cause, this shift has paradoxically worked in Israel’s favour in several indirect but significant ways:
Blurring Resistance and Terrorism: By associating itself with Palestinian issues, ISIS has muddied the global perception of legitimate Palestinian resistance. Israel has capitalised on this, portraying itself as a responsible actor combating extremism.
Fragmenting Palestinian Unity: ISIS’s ideological attacks on groups like Hamas serve to divide Palestinian ranks, weakening the cohesion needed for effective resistance and strengthening Israel’s relative position.
Diverting Global Attention: The world’s focus on global terrorism, driven in large part by ISIS’s actions, has shifted media and diplomatic scrutiny away from Israeli policies in the occupied territories, allowing Israel greater freedom of action.
A Relationship of Rhetoric vs. Reality
In conclusion, while Israel and ISIS maintain a public posture of mutual hatred, their actions have often run parallel, resulting in strategic outcomes that disproportionately favour Israel. Whether by deliberate strategy or circumstantial alignment, ISIS’s activities have indirectly bolstered Israel’s regional security and global narrative.
Their “hostility,” it turns out, may be more rhetorical than real, masking a deeper, if unintended, alignment of interests in a highly fractured Middle Eastern landscape.
