October 7th Was Necessary: How Insurgents Use Terror To Win

Photo Credits to US News.

Hamas recently published a report titled “Our Narrative.” This report was the first public report since the attack. The document claimed that the target of October 7th was military installations and soldiers and that any civilians caught in the crossfire were “accidental.” Regardless, Hamas’ strategy to delegitimize Israel is succeeding. This article briefly analyzes insurgent strategies and counterinsurgency mistakes.

Insurgent Warfare

Insurgent warfare involves two entities. Insurgents and Counterinsurgents. Insurgent forces are dedicated to overthrowing a host government and establishing their own. Counterinsurgents are devoted to defeating insurgent forces. While both goals are simple, the simplest things are the hardest to do in war. Insurgents cannot initially stage an all-out assault and seize a nation’s capital. One of the most significant weaknesses of insurgent forces is the lack of resources and capabilities. Aware of this, ambushes and raids are conducted to steal logistical supplies and utilize them against counterinsurgency forces. The goal is to muster a force strong enough to switch from unconventional to conventional tactics.

In addition to relying on ambushes and raids, insurgents rely on the “hearts and minds” of the population to act as logistics and information. This key factor separates insurgent warfare from conventional warfare. Insurgent forces must rely on the population for support. Tactically, it helps insurgents obtain critical information and equipment to conduct missions. Operationally, it is necessary to assist in the transition from the host nation government to the insurgent force.

Counterinsurgents fight an “uphill” battle in dealing with insurgent forces. What is often overlooked by counterinsurgents is the deeper underlying cause of insurgency. An insurgency is only developed because of poor environmental conditions, corrupt regime, horrible economy, and poor standards of living. Counterinsurgents constantly fight without dealing with the environmental conditions, eliminating insurgents left and right. It falls on counterinsurgents to “win” the hearts and minds of the population and eliminate insurgents.

The common mistake counterinsurgent forces make is focusing on eliminating insurgents. This flawed operational lens creates issues on the tactical level. Insurgents dwell within the population for logistics and support. Separating an insurgent from the population is similar to ripping a fish from the sea. Counterinsurgent forces will kill innocent civilians in the crossfire to kill insurgent forces. In response, insurgent forces use this to their advantage to delegitimize the host nation’s government to prop their own forces. In observing the fundamentals of insurgent warfare, Israel’s war is a textbook case study in analyzing Hamas’ larger strategy to defeat Israel.

Israel-Hamas War

Following October 7th, The Israeli Defense Force initiated an attack on the Gaza Strip. This devastating attack was swift and brutal. While multiple Hamas commanders were killed, a significant amount of civilians were killed in the crossfire. To make the situation complicated, Hamas insurgents kidnapped civilians and foreign nationals to prevent the IDF from completely annihilating the Gaza Strip. Hostages were used as leverage to exchange prisoners, but some were still held in captivity.

Above is a map provided by The US Sun that documents the conflict.

Worldwide, massive protests broke out to express their disgust over IDF operations in Gaza. Currently, South Africa has lobbied claims against Israel and accused their actions within Gaza of falling under genocide. In Israel’s haste to eliminate Hamas, a significant amount of civilians was killed. The burden of maintaining order falls on counterinsurgency. Insurgents, such as Hamas, have the luxury of killing civilians without restriction. While it would be significantly frowned upon by the international community to consistently kill civilians, Hamas does not have to worry about major diplomatic repercussions, unlike Israel. Currently, the backlash of Israel’s operation in Gaza is costing Israel diplomatic relations with other countries, and Benjamin Netanyahu is facing internal issues with the authority of his rule in Israel. Below is a chart listing from the BBC showing the number of casualties in Gaza.

Human Shields

Israeli officials are responding to this by stating that Hamas implements a strategy known as human shields. Human shield refers to using civilians and placing them in key military assets to prevent other forces from destroying it completely. Below is an excerpt from a NATO report about Hamas’ use of Human Shields:

Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

When Hamas seized hostages following their successful attack on October 7th, hostages were placed in critical structures that prevented IDF forces from destroying their positions with artillery or aircraft. Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, reported that Hamas’ main headquarters was in Al-Shifa Hospital.

Staging their headquarters directly inside a hospital reveals Hamas’ strategic goal to goad the IDF into destroying civilian infrastructure. If the IDF conducted a direct attack on Al-Shifa hospital without any regards to collateral, damage a significant amount of civilians would be killed. To make it even worse, a significant amount of patients would be killed, this in turn would be used to label Israel as a calloused and cruel state actor. However, this strategy has been used effectively against Israel, but with false news.

False News

When accounts posted that Israel bombed Al Ahil Arab Hospital, the reaction was swift. Protests broke out, and mainstream media condemned Israel’s operation in Gaza. Below is an excerpt from NPR:

Almost immediately, claims and counterclaims flew about who was responsible. Many initial news stories reported it as an Israeli airstrike, citing the Palestinian health ministry. Israel denied the accusation and said it was caused by a misfired rocket launched by a Palestinian militant group. On Wednesday, the U.S. backed up Israel’s claim based on its own analysis of “overhead imagery, intercepts and open source information.”

As more evidence has emerged, including photos of the blast site and videos from the time of the explosion, the majority of?independent analysts say?the damage is not consistent with a standard Israeli airstrike.

An aerial view of the complex housing the Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza City after an explosion on the hospital grounds that killed hundreds, according to Palestinian officials. Unraveling the facts behind the explosion has been made difficult because of swarms of social media accounts spreading false information about the explosion.Shadi Al-Tabatibi/AFP via Getty Images

But in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, the shifting accounts in news outlets and the rapid spread on social media of unverified information, old videos, and bogus eyewitness accounts fueled speculation, suspicion, and outrage — and, experts say, are making it more difficult to establish accountability for the tragedy.

Even before evidence was available and thoroughly assessed, many people had already made up their minds about whether Israel or Palestinians were to blame for the carnage.?Protests broke out across the Middle East, and a planned summit between President Biden and Palestinian, Egyptian, and Jordanian leaders was canceled.

“There really so far does appear to be a flood of misinformation in a very short time, and in a way that’s having a material impact on the diplomacy around the conflict, on the mass mobilization and protests, some of which can lead to violence,” said Daniel Silverman, a political science professor at Carnegie Mellon University who studies war and misinformation. “It’s hard to argue misinformation isn’t a central story here, and a really consequential one.”

Analysis

The dynamics of insurgent warfare are nothing short of complicated. Israel is faced with a dilemma that Hamas created. The ideal scenario for insurgents, is an overreaction from counerinsurgent forces. The more hellbent counterinsurgent forces are in their commitment to destroying insurgents, the more civilians are caught in the crossfire, and the more backlash counterinsurgent forces receive.

The war in Gaza has evolved into a much larger conflict. Thanks to the advent of social media, news and information can spread at a moments notice, the same can also be said for false information. In spreading false information about Israel, Hamas was able to take advantage of the outrage of the international community and framed Israel for a hospital bombing. Hamas’ goal is to delegitimize Israel in the international community. With the help of state actors like Iran and South Africa, Hamas’ goals are slowly being realized. Without the overreaction from counterinsurgent forces, Hamas would not be able to gain sympathy.

The October 7th attacks were necessary to enrage the IDF in a campaign that lacked regard for civilian casualties. While the IDF is doing the best it can in limiting civilian deaths, it is still held responsible for any dead civilian. In conclusion, to goad the IDF to a campaign that is dedicated to eradicating Hamas, Hamas needed to conduct the attack on October 7th.