lemonde.fr
Israel's Counterproductive Gaza Strategy Strengthens Hamas
Israel's military response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack in Gaza, involving intense bombardments and a ground reoccupation, has inadvertently strengthened Hamas despite significant civilian casualties and destruction; this counterproductive strategy was supported by the US under President Biden.
- How did the US administration's support for Israel's military strategy in Gaza contribute to the ongoing conflict and the growth of Hamas?
- Israel's military strategy, focused on eliminating Hamas fighters through sheer force, overlooked the group's capacity for rapid recruitment. This approach, exemplified by the high civilian casualty rate, fueled Hamas's narrative and bolstered its support. The US, under the Biden administration, consistently supported this flawed strategy.
- What were the primary consequences of Israel's military response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack in Gaza, and how did it impact the power of Hamas?
- Following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, Israel's response, characterized by intense bombardments and a ground reoccupation of Gaza starting October 27, 2023, has inadvertently strengthened Hamas. Further escalations, including the May 6, 2024 Rafah offensive and the October 6, 2024 northern Gaza depopulation campaign, only resulted in increased destruction without weakening Hamas's control.
- What long-term implications can be foreseen from Israel's military approach in Gaza, specifically its impact on the region's stability and the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
- The Israeli military's fixation on static numerical assessments (reducing the 'stock' of Hamas fighters) proved counterproductive. This resulted in escalating violence and a prolonged conflict, ultimately strengthening Hamas. The US's unwavering support for this approach paved the way for the Trump administration's likely more assertive policies toward Israel and the region.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames Israel's actions as misguided and counterproductive, emphasizing the unintended consequences of its military response. The author uses strong language ('aveuglement,' 'piège') to portray Israel's strategy as fundamentally flawed. The headline (if any) would likely reinforce this perspective.
Language Bias
The author employs charged language such as 'aveuglement' (blindness), 'piège' (trap), and 'erronée' (erroneous) to describe Israeli actions. These words carry strong negative connotations and lack neutrality. More neutral alternatives could include 'miscalculation,' 'strategic challenge,' and 'misguided,' respectively. The repeated emphasis on the negative consequences of Israeli actions reinforces a biased tone.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the Israeli response to the Hamas attack and omits potential contributing factors from the Palestinian side, such as the initial attack's planning and execution. The perspective of Hamas's actions and motivations is largely absent, creating an incomplete picture of the conflict.
False Dichotomy
The text presents a false dichotomy by portraying the conflict as solely a consequence of Israel's actions, ignoring the initiating role of Hamas's attack. It simplifies a complex conflict into a narrative where Israel's responses are solely to blame.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article describes the escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, resulting in significant loss of life and further instability. The ongoing conflict, characterized by military offensives and retaliations, undermines peace, justice, and the ability to build strong institutions in the region. The focus on purely military solutions, neglecting the underlying political and social issues, exacerbates the conflict and hinders the establishment of lasting peace and security.