Tariq Mahmood Awan
The current Israeli strategy of intense bombing backed by ground action cannot achieve strategic denial because Hamas’s planned surprise has already accomplished its objectives in the region and beyond. Hence the aerial attacks are a form of coercion or punishment on Gazans for Hamas to surrender or at least give something substantial in return to mitigate the effects of its strategic surprise. The IDF must understand that the well thought-out attack conducted by Hamas was in reaction to the Israeli strategy to make Hamas irrelevant by normalising relationships with its neighbouring countries including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This has produced a strategic friction between Hamas and KSA (and other Muslim countries) which finally culminated in the form of a well-coordinated high-tech attack on October 7, 2023.
Moreover, the current actions of IDF are bound to generate another strategic surprise which must be under process of ossification in near future. It might be a sort of an innovative action against Israel or its interests perpetrated and coordinated by different extremist groups in the region. It can also come from a region or area least focused upon or concerned with IDF at the moment, or it might erupt from the country of one of its strategic partners in the region.
The IDF strategy should be viewed on the parameter of a successful denial or a coercion failure. There are chances and the way the war has progressed so far it may result into a failed coercion. Apart from killing some primary members of Hamas along with tall claims of decimating its Gaza-based headquarters, nothing substantial is documented on ground. IDF has shared a couple of videos on discovering underground tunnels as well. However, a true picture of these mazes is still enveloped in fog of war. Meanwhile, Israel is adamant that it wants to obliterate Hamas from Gaza and has intensified its aerial attacks on every nook and corner of the Gaza. According to the statistics compiled by the Care International, a leading international NGO delivering long-term developmental and humanitarian aid projects across the globe, the intensity of bombing indicates that nearly 70% of over 11,000 killed are women and children. The fatalities among children in Gaza have surpassed the number of women and children killed or injured in Ukraine war so far.
There is no match between Hamas and IDF when it comes to aerial power. The Israelis have been conducting aerial bombardment to reduce any resistance from Hamas during ground assault. The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that nearly 15,000 housing units have been destroyed while about 10,000 were rendered inhabitable during the aerial assault so far. Moreover, 139,000 residential units experienced minor damages, pointing to the destruction of entire neighbourhoods. As the IDF moved forward to seize the Gaza city and its environs, mass exodus of population has been observed in last few weeks. The IDF has no hesitation in bombing shelter centres for the displaced Gazans as they think they have the human intelligence on the presence of Hamas elements hiding among the population. Such pattern of aerial strikes suggests that Israel wants to instil fear in the hearts and minds of Gaza inhabitants to disassociate themselves from the Hamas. This link is crucial as population has always been conveniently used as a safe refuge to hide. The Gaza is an isolated geographical piece bounded by sea and land. Hence, the strategy of intense bombing can produce the requisite results for IDF in terms of temporary capitulation of Hamas or at least a retreat for the time being. This might not be the principal objective of IDF as the political leadership back home cannot synchronise it earnestly with its will at the moment.
With Iran unlikely to change its posture, the current bombing and its graphics on social media platforms will only fuel the resentment and anger among the Muslim world, especially the youth, who are already disillusioned and frustrated by the lack of support and solidarity from their governments and leaders. The Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, was a strategic surprise that caught Israel off guard and exposed its vulnerabilities. The attack involved the use of drones, rockets, and cyberattacks, targeting Israel’s military and civilian infrastructure, such as airbases, power plants, communication networks, and airports. The attack was coordinated with the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah and was supported by Iran and Turkey. The attack caused significant damage and disruption and also demonstrated the technological and operational capabilities of Hamas and its allies. The attack also had a psychological and political impact, as it challenged Israel’s deterrence and security, and boosted the morale and legitimacy of Hamas and its supporters. The attack also provoked a strong reaction from Israel, which launched a massive retaliation campaign, involving airstrikes, artillery, and ground invasion.
Please, subscribe to the monthly magazines of republicpolicy.com
The attack also triggered a regional and international response, as Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and the UN tried to mediate a ceasefire, while the US, the EU, Russia, and China expressed their concerns and called for restraint.
The current Israeli strategy of intense bombing backed by ground action is unlikely to achieve strategic denial, as it cannot undo the effects of the Hamas attack, nor can it prevent future attacks. The strategy is also counterproductive, as it causes more civilian casualties and suffering, and alienates the international community and public opinion. The strategy is also ineffective, as it cannot destroy the Hamas infrastructure and leadership, which are well hidden and dispersed. The strategy is also risky, as it increases the chances of escalation and confrontation with other actors, such as Iran, Hezbollah, and Turkey. The strategy is also unsustainable, as it drains the Israeli resources and morale, and faces domestic and external pressure to end the conflict.
The Israeli strategy is more of a form of coercion or punishment on Gazans for Hamas to surrender or at least give something substantial in return to mitigate the effects of its strategic surprise. The strategy is based on the assumption that by inflicting pain and suffering on the Gazan population, Israel can force Hamas to accept its terms and conditions, such as disarmament, demilitarization, and recognition. The strategy is also based on the belief that by weakening and isolating Hamas, Israel can restore its deterrence and security, and improve its regional and international standing. The strategy is also based on the hope that by creating a humanitarian crisis and a political vacuum in Gaza, Israel can induce the intervention and involvement of other actors, such as the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and the UN, to take over the responsibility and control of Gaza.
However, the Israeli strategy of coercion or punishment is flawed and doomed to fail, as it ignores the reality and complexity of the situation. The strategy is based on a false premise that Hamas is a rational and pragmatic actor that can be deterred and coerced by threats and violence. The strategy also overlooks the fact that Hamas is a resilient and adaptive actor that can withstand and survive the Israeli onslaught, and even benefit from it. The strategy also neglects the fact that Hamas is a popular and legitimate actor that enjoys the support and sympathy of the Gazan population and the wider Muslim and Arab world. The strategy also fails to recognize that Hamas is a networked and collaborative actor that has the backing and assistance of other actors, such as Iran, Turkey, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. The strategy also disregards the fact that Hamas is a strategic and innovative actor that can launch and execute surprise attacks, and exploit the Israeli weaknesses and gaps.
Therefore, the Israeli strategy of coercion or punishment is not only ineffective and counterproductive, but also dangerous and irresponsible, as it can lead to more violence and instability, and create more problems and challenges for Israel and the region. The IDF must understand that the Hamas attack was a reaction to the Israeli strategy to make Hamas irrelevant by normalising relationships with its neighbouring countries, including the KSA. This strategy has created a strategic friction between Hamas and KSA (and other Muslim countries), which has resulted in the Hamas attack, which was a way of asserting its relevance and influence in the region and beyond. The IDF must also anticipate that the current actions of IDF are bound to generate another strategic surprise, which must be under process of ossification in near future. It might be a sort of an innovative action against Israel or its interests perpetrated and coordinated by different extremist groups in the region. It can also come from a region or area least focused upon or concerned with IDF at the moment, or it might erupt from the country of one of its strategic partners in the region.
The IDF must rethink and revise its strategy, and adopt a more realistic and constructive approach, that can address the root causes and the core issues of the conflict, and that can achieve a lasting and comprehensive peace and security for Israel and the region. The IDF must acknowledge and respect the existence and the rights of Hamas and the Palestinian people, and engage in a meaningful and sincere dialogue and negotiation with them. The IDF must also cooperate and coordinate with the regional and international actors, and abide by the international law and norms, and seek a political and diplomatic solution, rather than a military and violent one. The IDF must also recognize and appreciate the diversity and complexity of the region, and seek a balanced and inclusive relationship with its neighbours, rather than a divisive and exclusive one. The IDF must also be aware and prepared for the changing and challenging environment, and seek a flexible and adaptive strategy, rather than a rigid and reactive one. The IDF must also be responsible and accountable for its actions and consequences, and seek a humane and ethical strategy, rather than a cruel and immoral one.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
