Comment on this storyComment
As new evidence emerges of atrocities committed by Palestinian militants against Israeli civilians and the Israeli military begins its offensive in the Gaza Strip, a debate is emerging over Hamas’s long-term strategic goals and objectives what impact Saturday’s dramatic collapse will have on politics in the Middle East.
Although the roots of the conflict date back decades, even seasoned foreign policy observers and international relations scholars were surprised by the extraordinary outbreak of violence. After Hamas killed more than 1,000 Israelis, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government declared war on Hamas. Also the United Nations described the newly ignited conflict as a war. Both at the same time Israeli and U.S. politicians and other leaders around the world described Hamas’ attack as terrorism – an attack by non-state actors on civilians to incite fear.
The semantic distinction is not just academic: with the carnage New questions about centuries-old arguments stir emotions in the Middle East and beyond, drawing attention to the what Attacks on civilians are carried out on behalf of militant groups.
“There is no consensus about whether terrorism works,” said Max Abrahms, a political scientist at Northeastern University who has conducted one of the largest studies to date on the effects of terror tactics. His research concluded that such attacks rarely achieve the group’s political goals. “But it depends on what ‘works’ means,” Abrahms said. “When it comes to promoting terror and fear, by this definition it has a 100 percent success rate. But forcing a government to make political concessions? Far less.”
It is also not clear how best to defend against the use of terror by extremist groups. Targeting According to the rules of war, the use of civilians is clearly illegal, but these rules are set by countries to govern themselves. Hamas is at best a hybrid – a militant group that governs territory that is not a nation-state. Although it won Gaza’s 2006 parliamentary election, it wrested power from the Palestinian Authority in 2007 and has not allowed voting since.
But as the United Nations The undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs called on Hamas to do so on Tuesday When he called for the release of hostages and for Israel to lift the blockade on aid to Gaza, he addressed Hamas as if it were subject to international law. “My message to all sides is clear: The Laws of war must be observed“Martin Griffiths said in a statement.
But according to scholars who study the roots and effects of terrorism, militant groups are not bound by the norms of international law, both because they have fewer resources and because their targets are not traditional military objectives.
“An organization like Hamas, which has been fighting and running elections for decades, is not just expressing anger,” said Peter Krause, a political scientist at Boston College who studies the effectiveness of terrorism. “They have tried boycotts, strikes, terrorism and military targeting. They have strategic objectives, and Hamas has been very strategic in its use of force over the years, even at times when it has refrained from firing rockets at a strategic target.”
Hamas shock troops – which the Israeli government said killed 1,500 people – did not attack military targets on Saturday, such as Tel Aviv International Airport, internet infrastructure, power plants or key government and military facilities. Rather, Krause said the goal appears to be to stoke fear and outrage in Israel, force the government into a disproportionate military response and undermine ongoing efforts to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
“This rampage will in no way increase the chances of a Palestinian state,” Abrahms said. “On the other hand, it will provoke Israel to destroy Hamas, which could end up strengthening Hamas and increasing the Palestinians’ drive for revenge.”
The decision to attack civilians and take hostages, callous as it was, was likely designed to prompt Israel to retaliate with such violence that the world would turn against the Israelis, Krause said. Hamas also wants to be seen as the standard bearer of Palestinian resistance throughout the Arab world.
Although some leaders have called on Israel to show restraint in its response to the attacks, there is little precedent for turning the other cheek in the face of an attack on civilians. The Biden administration has all but given Israel the green light to retaliate against Hamas and vowed its public, unconditional support for Netanyahu’s war.
“You wouldn’t be human if you didn’t see a terrorist attack like this as something that provokes a strong reaction,” Krause said.
This reaction could play into the hands of Hamas. As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz noted in his 2002 book “Why Terrorism Works,” terrorist tactics typically resulted in gains in publicity, freedom for imprisoned comrades, and legitimacy for terrorist causes.
The international community has long since responded to terrorism “by consistently rewarding and legitimizing it rather than punishing and condemning it,” Dershowitz wrote.
In 1960s and 1970s Europe, some sympathetic voices on the left argued that responding to terror with violence would only reinforce radicals’ belief that bloodletting worked. But public opinion often led these governments to hit back hard, whether against the German Baader-Meinhof gang or the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland.
Other countries have responded to terrorism with harsh reprisals in the past, such as Russia’s long history of brutally cracking down on separatist movements and Sri Lanka’s crackdown on the Tamil Tigers, whose decades-long fight for an independent state pioneered suicide bombings and the use of women was and children in battle.
The Sept. 11 attacks were intended to provoke the United States into an overwhelming retaliation that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden predicted would sway world sympathies to the Islamist cause. Washington responded with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that ultimately proved highly unpopular and undermined America’s standing in much of the world, but bin Laden’s movement received no significant support.
“It’s important to take emotions into account,” Krause said, “but a cold calculation would mean that just because the other side wants you to hit back, you shouldn’t do it.”
A terrorist group almost never manages to change its policy by attacking civilians, Abrahms said. “Often aggrieved groups have the misconception that the more radical they are, the more influence they have on the government they are fighting,” he said.
Abrahms’ study of global terrorism suggests that when attacks on military targets are made, the target country sometimes makes political concessions.
“In this case, Israel and Hamas had rules of the game: each side was willing to tolerate a certain level of violence. But now Hamas has completely broken all the rules,” Abrahms said. “That changed the game. The destruction of Hamas has not yet been Israel’s goal. Now it can be.”
Terror experts say Hamas may be able to achieve some of its goals and use the attacks to boost support among Palestinians in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The invasion could also end up discouraging Arab states from pursuing diplomatic normalization with Israel.
Meanwhile, Israel will now have to assess what progress it can make toward its goal of weakening Hamas while freeing the hostages and restoring a shattered sense of deterrence and security.
“I don’t know if they can achieve all of these goals,” Krause said.