Haaretz: Israel did not have any strategy or “end scenario” regarding Gaza … and now it is paying the price

Haaretz said that it is impossible to know the “end scenario” that Israel thought about its ongoing military campaign in the Gaza Strip, for one reason that there was no strategy or thinking about a “beginning of the game” but only circumstantial decisions, miscalculations and wrong political calculations. And retaliatory reactions.

The Israeli newspaper stated – in an analysis by former journalist and diplomat Alon Pinkas – that these features often embody Israel’s “imbalanced strategic thinking”, which is when the state replaces or mixes the military-tactical dimensions with political strategic considerations.

In the absence of a clear, coherent and objective strategy – whether intentionally or due to political coercions – the state is forced to implement a series of tactical, military, and later diplomatic moves, the decision-makers delude themselves – if it succeeded – that they had a “wonderful” strategy and publicly claim that they were well aware of what They do and it really worked.

But the reality – the journalist adds – is completely different, as the absence of a clear vision and strategy means that there is no political motive that justifies entering the conflict and not specific political results that he wants to achieve when leaving it, and talking about any “tactical achievements” is often less valuable than

This is a modal window.

We are having an unexpected problem, check and try again shortly

Error code: MEDIA_ERR_UNKNOWN Session ID: 2021-05-17: 51dd4a95e8fc26d0e884acec Trigger object ID: vjs_video_1851

Strategic flaw

Gaza is a vivid embodiment of this imbalance in strategic thinking, as Israel was not able, until recently, to specify exactly what it should do about the Iranian-backed Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which controls the Gaza Strip in the backyard of Israel, according to the Haaretz analysis.

The scenario of an incursion into the Gaza Strip to topple the Hamas movement appears to be costly and politically fraught with risks, so Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come up with an alternative formula that requires the opposite of that to strengthen Hamas in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority, thus exempting Israel from any need to engage in a political process with the Palestinians. Under the pretext that it is not possible to negotiate with an “extremist terrorist organization” such as Hamas.

On the other hand, the military operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, in 2012, 2014, 2018, and now, have followed an identical pattern and time series to the point that the matter has become like a regular ritual whose details are easy to predict, and often ends – after waves of escalation and diplomatic mediation from one side or that – with the declaration of a truce. Each time things return to the starting point.

According to the former diplomat, this repeated outcome raises questions about the feasibility of everything that has been done since the beginning, and then both sides enter again into another battle over “who is victorious?” In it, Israel simply cannot, in the absence of a strategy about what it should do against Hamas and

This is a modal window.

We are having an unexpected problem, check and try again shortly

Error code: MEDIA_ERR_UNKNOWN Session ID: 2021-05-17: c046b56b36545b2545019039 Trigger object ID: vjs_video_2465

Battle of consciousness

Although it may have already achieved some impressive tactical achievements, Hamas will rebuild each time “because Israel facilitates and allows it to do so.”

Political psychologists and communication specialists believe that this battle is, in fact, a battle for “awareness” and “perceptions of success”, in which Israel and Hamas are jointly searching for a “decisive victory” that leaves an indelible imprint of “victory” in the minds of their people.

In sum, as the Haaretz journalist sees it, when the strategic vision is absent and the conflict is by its nature unequal, decisive victories are not achieved, but only the opening of a new “bloody and ugly chapter” that paves the way for the next round of conflict that will follow the same pattern and chronology of the previous rounds.

The tactical victories of a superior military force can never be a substitute for strategy. The issue of Hamas, Gaza, and the Palestinian-Israeli dilemma in general cannot be addressed through the amazing battle of technologies against tunnels, and the belief that the use of military force alone serves the interest of Israel is a dangerous self-denial.