CHECK TO THE KING. ISRAEL RISKS IT ALL.

Written by Paolo Corti

20th October 2023

Whatever the outcome of the Israeli military operation, one thing is clear: Hamas has already triumphed in the communications arena. The Palestinian group’s aim was not military, but rather demiurgic-semiotic, given the imbalanced conflict situation. The objective was to harm Israel's reputation and, consequently, alter the world's perception of it, predominantly among the Muslim world.

Hybrid warfare modes are commonplace in uneven conflicts and represent the required modus operandi of weaker factions. In the hyper-connected global context of today, communication plays a vital role in achieving military and political targets through the generation of messages, symbols, and values conveyed via mass and new media. The 'communication weapon' will undoubtedly become increasingly crucial and decisive in this specific conflict.

Through an operation defined in intelligence circles as 'strategic surprise', Hamas achieved four tactical objectives: to redefine Israel's image in the eyes of the Islamic world, weaken its political leadership, make its society more fragile, and destabilise the anti-Iranian axis between Israel and multiple Arab states. Therefore, to comprehend the larger picture, it is essential to incorporate Iran's far-reaching influence, which exploited Hamas for its own ends, taking into account the complexity and intricacy of the project.

Given the achievements of Hamas and the Iranians, it is conceivable that the coming developments could have a significant impact on the entire geopolitical structure of the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa. This in turn could influence the strategic decisions of both the United States and China to either maintain or gain their status as global leaders.

The primary aim of 'Storm Al-Aqsa' was to significantly tarnish Israel's reputation globally and domestically. As a result, Israel's regional deterrent, which was built over time since 1948, is now in a state of crisis. However, Hamas's most significant impact has been on the internal front, where the assault created a great sense of fear and insecurity among the already-divided Israeli society, making it more vulnerable. It is currently challenging to predict the socio-political outcomes resulting from these traumas. A realistic analysis can only be conducted after the games have ended, away from the initial shock of the attack and the subsequent call for national unity, considering the ongoing existential threat.

At the tactical level, Hamas' ability was comparable to playing chess, executing a two-move attack plan in advance to trap Israel into a cul-de-sac. The Palestinian Sunni group has forced Israel to launch a heavy military operation in Gaza, risking confirming to Israeli public opinion, especially its ultra-Orthodox sector, and the Islamic world that it is no longer the dominant state in the region, and also risking questioning Israel's ability to respond decisively to protect its people. This was only possible thanks to a thorough analysis of the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East, including the Muslim world, as well as the society and culture of Israel. Hamas, or whoever is responsible for it, has aligned itself with Israel.

Hamas has shown that Israel is not invincible, weakened its society, refocused global attention on the Palestinian issue, and as a result of the Israeli military assault, it will further solidify the perception of Israel as a despotic and bloodthirsty nation within international and particularly Islamic public opinion.

The timing chosen by Hamas to strike was accurate. The United States, Israel's closest ally, cannot open a third front in the Middle East, especially while dealing with the Ukrainian and Indo-Pacific fronts, and potentially fighting Iran, a regional power. The Americans are well aware that becoming embroiled in a new war alongside Israel, in an extremely unstable area, would be a strategic suicide. Naturally, China and Russia will work covertly to achieve this outcome. President Biden can only offer symbolic and logistical-military assistance to Israel with an eye on the 2024 elections, and cannot do more.

Similarly, Europe, currently grappling with a significant economic and energy crisis, embroiled in the Ukraine war despite itself, and experiencing internal divisions, does not consider Israel's security a strategic priority. Moreover, this conflict may trigger internal security issues related to Muslim terrorism. Despite receiving sincere support from the Western powers, Israel is currently facing unprecedented isolation.

In the media, the most noticeable aspect of the first ten days of the conflict is the large number of non-governmental videos on the internet. In addition to the tragedy depicted in these images, the abundance of civilians filming the same scene with their smartphones is remarkable: multiple points of view and several shots are available for each tragic event. The prevalence of disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda has made the media war increasingly relevant. As a result, it has become considerably challenging to evaluate events. This will prompt the general public to simplify the conflict by categorising it as a battle between "good guys and bad guys", between "invaders and resistance".

If posting this content online gives it a near-global reach, then the various perspectives amplify its effects. Above all, these perspectives attest to the awareness of conflict victims, who can now use their smartphones as weapons to harm their adversaries. The smartphone becomes a real weapon for hybrid warfare.

Aside from military evaluations regarding the human costs and chances of success in Operation Iron Sword, and political assessments on how Israel will handle this part of the territory and its rapport with Hamas (which cannot simply vanish), one aspect was clear from the beginning: Israel's reluctance to reduce the 'collateral effects' of the assault. Two weeks after the commencement of Israeli operations, data from the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs shows that 5,000 civilians have perished, 17,000 have sustained injuries, and 17,000 wellings have been demolished, amounting to 30% of the total housing in the Gaza Strip. Regrettably, these statistics are likely to rise as the military campaign persists.

The Israeli government appears to be grossly underestimating the media's capability to create persuasive narratives and messages that can help achieve strategic or tactical objectives, such as conflict resolution or circumventing the involvement of other regional powers. Israel does not seem to have a communication strategy and relies solely on the use of weapons: due to its military superiority, Israel is fighting an asymmetric war as if it were a classic symmetrical conflict. This approach entails considerable strategic risks. Every nation engaged in conflict must develop a tailored narrative to justify its involvement and garner support from allied countries while weakening its opponents. This narrative also serves to engage and placate public opinion. Unfortunately, Israel has yet to make significant progress in this area. Currently, the organisation has only taken sporadic actions, such as attempting to introduce terms like "Hamas equals Isis" and "Hamas attack equals holocaust" into Western media vernacular. They have also used images of slain Israeli citizens, particularly children, to convey the perception of Hamas as brutal. But in the context of the ongoing conflict, these isolated messages are undermined by the many atrocities committed by the Israeli army. The lack of a communication strategy aimed at achieving precise objectives and goals is evident. Israel lacks a grand narrative of the conflict, which is essential for consolidating the internal front and justifying war operations to external actors. This narrative must promise a deserving future for the people of Israel once the war is over. The target audience of Israeli communication is also wrong: without any apparent logic, the government in Jerusalem is currently more focused on engaging the West in support of its cause than on avoiding stirring up public opinion in the nations in its area of interest to revolt. Again from a communicative point of view, another gross mistake made by the Jerusalem government was to justify the military operation against Hamas solely as retaliation against the Hmas's massacres. This choice means disregarding how the media and agenda setting works. Although of a unique atrocity, the Palestinian attack took place in a single day; in contrast, Israeli activities in the Gaza Strip and neighbouring territories (West Bank, Lebanon, Syria) are likely to last for weeks, assuming the conflict does not spread to neighbouring nations. IIn today's fast-paced media world, the significance of an event is fleeting: if it doesn't repeat, it rapidly vanishes from the media and consequently from people's memories. Due to circumstances, the visuals of the Hamas attack will gradually fade away from the conventional mass media, whereas those of the Israeli operation will continue to be highlighted throughout the conflict and beyond, because of the physical devastation that will remain once the operation concludes. Hamas, on the other hand, is aware of these mechanisms and will cleverly use the release of the Israeli hostages to emphasize its magnanimity. All these elements will solidify the image of Israel as an oppressor and wicked state that uses violence as its ultimate goal in the eyes of Muslim and Western public opinion. The attackdistancing message by Hamas on the 7th of October will inevitably fade into the background.

The footage of civilian fatalities, displaced Palestinians, and damaged cities will generate a ripple effect that will polarise public opinion, particularly in the Islamic world, against Israel. Governments that fail to take a clear stand against Israeli operations due to their efforts to normalize relations with Israel, primarily for economic conveniences and national interests (chiefly, isolating Iran), may face internal destabilization. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey will need to carefully manage a pro-Israeli foreign policy amidst a pro-Palestinian domestic landscape. These governments will likely face a dilemma of either condemning Israel and supporting the Palestinian cause or risking severe internal instability. The aforementioned nations are autocracies with varying degrees of authoritarianism and therefore, having a more or less tight control over the main stream information, will certainly try to convey a distensive message regarding the Palestinian issue. However, they can only partially filter content related to the Israeli operation uploaded on sharing platforms and social media due to free access to these platforms in each nation. The minimum platforms available for filtering are two in Bahrain (Facebook and WhatsApp), while Turkey offers five (Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Clubhouse), not including purely local social media. In Egypt, there are 40 million Facebook users and 2 million Twitter users. Furthermore, the younger population, who are most likely to support the uprisings, acquires information primarily through the internet. The impact of the overwhelming influx of emotive information may lead to significant repercussions on the socio-political structure of nations that choose not to condemn Israel. Such consequences will vary depending on their social, economic and political landscape. They will also be proportionate to their capacity to persuade public opinion to support a foreign policy that goes against their culture and religious doctrines. The repercussions of this event will impact both the immediate and future stakeholders, particularly regarding public perception. The extent and ramifications of this impact will directly correlate with the nature, length, and scope of Israeli military action. The Hamas-initiated conflict has resulted in far-reaching geopolitical consequences that are unpredictable in terms of duration, direction and outcome. The only certainty that remains is that the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and the Muslim world will be permanently altered. Similarly, after the end of the conflict, Israel must redefine itself as a nation and find a solution to the Palestinian question based on a viable and reasonable coexistence for both factions in an area where, despite its technological and military superiority, it is in the minority.