dw.com
Hamas's Strength Despite Ceasefire in Gaza Raises Questions About Israel's 'Total Victory'
Following a 15-month conflict between Israel and Hamas, a ceasefire has been implemented. While Israel claims "total victory", Hamas continues to recruit members, and an estimated 46,000 Palestinians have died. The future of the Gaza Strip and the lingering question of the remaining hostages are uncertain.
- What are the implications of Hamas's public display of strength despite a ceasefire and heavy military losses, and what does it mean for Israel's stated goal of 'total victory'?
- A ceasefire is in effect after a 15-month conflict between Israel and Hamas, yet Hamas displays strength, with armed men publicly gathering. Over 1,200 Israelis were killed in initial Hamas attacks, prompting a military response that resulted in the deaths of over 46,000 Palestinians, according to Palestinian sources. A key question is whether Israel achieved its stated goal of total victory.
- How did the conflict's humanitarian impact—including the high Palestinian death toll and displacement—affect Hamas's ability to recruit new fighters and maintain control in Gaza?
- The conflict's aftermath reveals Hamas's continued influence, despite heavy losses. Hamas's ability to recruit fighters, potentially fueled by grievances and control over aid, contrasts with Israeli claims of a decisive military victory. The high Palestinian death toll and displacement contribute to Hamas's continued appeal, raising concerns about long-term stability.
- Considering the ongoing influence of Hamas and the unresolved underlying political issues, what are the short-term and long-term prospects for sustained peace and stability in the Gaza Strip?
- The ceasefire's long-term success is uncertain, given the ongoing power of Hamas and the unresolved political issues. The current situation presents the risk of further conflict if Israel's stated goals are not achieved, or if humanitarian conditions fail to improve. Hamas's control over resources and its ability to attract new recruits suggest the conflict may be far from over.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing clearly favors the Israeli perspective, although it does include statements from a Hamas representative. The headline (if there was one) and introductory paragraphs likely set a tone focused on Israel's actions and losses. The use of terms like "terrorist organization" heavily frames Hamas negatively, and the focus on Israeli military actions and casualties highlights that perspective more prominently than the Palestinian perspective.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotionally charged language such as "massacre," "terrorist organization," and "complete victory." The use of "terrorist" to describe Hamas is a loaded term that presents a biased perspective. The repeated mention of Hamas's actions in terms of violence frames them negatively. Neutral alternatives could include "militant group," "armed group" or simply "Hamas," describing actions without loaded terminology. The numbers of casualties are presented without deeper context to allow the reader to understand the severity of losses for both sides in more neutral ways.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Israeli perspective and the actions of Hamas, but provides limited insight into the grievances and motivations of the Palestinian population beyond their desire for revenge and the actions of Hamas. The suffering of Palestinian civilians is mentioned, but the underlying political and socio-economic factors contributing to the conflict are largely absent. This omission limits the reader's ability to understand the complexities of the conflict and the perspectives of all involved parties.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between Hamas and Israel, framing it as a clear-cut conflict between the two entities. The nuances of the conflict, the involvement of other groups, and the complexities of the political landscape are largely absent. The framing of 'complete victory' is also presented as a false dichotomy, implying only two possible outcomes, without considering potential middle grounds or alternative solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article mentions that up to 90% of the population in Gaza is facing famine due to the conflict. This directly impacts food security and access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food, which is a core element of SDG 2: Zero Hunger.