jpost.com
Internal Obstacles Prolong Gaza War
Nineteen months after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the ongoing war in Gaza is hampered by internal opposition from unelected officials allegedly overriding government-approved policies, preventing the implementation of strategies to end the conflict and secure Israel's southern border.
- Why is the Israeli military operation in Gaza proving to be a prolonged conflict despite significant military resources?
- Since October 7, 2023, Israel has been engaged in a protracted war against Hamas in Gaza. Over 1,200 Israeli civilians were killed in the initial attacks, and 251 remain hostages. Despite significant military efforts, the conflict persists due to internal obstacles.
- How are unelected officials within Israel's legal and military systems allegedly obstructing the government's efforts to end the conflict in Gaza?
- The ongoing conflict is hampered by what the author terms a 'deep state'—unelected officials within the legal, military, and bureaucratic systems. These officials are alleged to be overriding government policies, hindering military operations, and preventing the implementation of strategies to secure Israel's southern border.
- What systemic reforms are needed within the Israeli government and legal system to ensure military operations can be conducted effectively without undue interference and ensure democratic accountability?
- The author contends that legal advisors are preventing the government from implementing policies such as voluntary emigration of Gazans, which the author posits as a viable solution. This internal resistance, the author argues, is prolonging the conflict and undermining Israel's ability to achieve a decisive victory and lasting security.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article is framed as an investigation into why Israel hasn't "won" the conflict, immediately setting a narrative of failure and highlighting the alleged failings of the legal system as the primary cause. The use of emotionally charged language, such as "darkest day in modern Israeli history," "massacred," and "sabotaging our ability to win," creates a strong emotional response in the reader, predisposing them to accept the author's perspective. The headline (if present, assumed for analysis purposes) would likely further emphasize the narrative of a hindered victory due to internal obstacles. The article strategically sequences examples of perceived legal obstruction, building a case against the legal system without offering balanced counter-arguments.
Language Bias
The article uses highly charged and emotional language to portray the legal system negatively. Terms like "deep state," "sabotaging," "handcuffed," "paralyzing," and "willing slaves of radical left-wing organizations" are examples of loaded language designed to evoke strong negative feelings towards the legal system. The repeated use of phrases like "preventing Israel from achieving Jewish survival and sovereignty" carries strong nationalistic and religious connotations. More neutral alternatives might include "influencing policy decisions," "impeding the implementation of government policies," "limiting military options," or "raising legal concerns about government actions.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the alleged actions of the "deep state" and the legal system, potentially omitting or downplaying other factors contributing to the ongoing conflict, such as the complexities of the military situation in Gaza, Hamas's tactics, or international diplomatic pressures. The lack of detailed analysis on these points could mislead the reader into believing the legal system is the sole or primary obstacle to victory. The article also fails to mention any counterarguments or differing perspectives on the actions of the legal system or the effectiveness of proposed solutions like voluntary emigration.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the situation as a simple choice between the actions of the "deep state" hindering victory and a swift, decisive victory if that "deep state" were removed. It oversimplifies a highly complex military and political situation, ignoring the multifaceted challenges and nuances of the conflict. The suggestion that overcoming the "deep state" will automatically lead to victory is an oversimplification.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how unelected officials and legal advisors are undermining democratically determined policies, hindering the war effort, and potentially prolonging the conflict. This directly impacts the SDG's target of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all and building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. The actions of these unelected officials actively obstruct justice and accountable governance, thus negatively impacting this SDG.