Israel's War Strategy: Hostage Concern as Tool for Gaza's Destruction
Translated & summarized from Local Call by baba
Author Dr. Hana (Omri) Ben Yehuda argues that Israel's concern for hostages has been used to justify the destruction of Gaza. She contends that the government's emphasis on "military pressure" as the means to free hostages, despite their deaths, served to create public consensus for the war. This narrative, she claims, displaced the focus from the political aspirations of Palestinians and the goal of destroying Gaza. The author suggests that this reframing allowed for widespread support for military action, masking the true objectives of restoring Israeli dominance and avenging the October 7 attacks.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Author argues Israel's concern for hostages was used to justify Gaza's destruction.
- The equation "military pressure will lead to hostage return" is criticized as flawed.
- Prime Minister Netanyahu's government prioritized military pressure over other means for hostage release.
- The narrative allowed for broad public support for the war and destruction in Gaza.
- The true motivation for military action is argued to be Gaza's destruction and restoring Israeli dominance.
- Criticism of war crimes is noted but deemed insufficient for not linking to hostage policy.
The Israeli public's existential concern for hostages held by Hamas has been reframed and utilized as a resource to justify the extensive destruction in Gaza, according to author Dr. Hana (Omri) Ben Yehuda. This reframing, she argues, allowed the government to pursue military objectives in Gaza while ostensibly prioritizing the return of the more than two hundred hostages taken on October 7, 2023.
Ben Yehuda contends that the equation "military pressure will lead to the return of hostages," promoted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, has been a central, albeit flawed, tenet of the war. While the War Cabinet, including members like Yoav Gallant, Benny Gantz, Ron Dermer, and Gadi Eisenkot, initially placed the hostages' return at the forefront of war aims, the government's decision to prioritize military pressure over other means, even against advice from senior military and political figures, is questioned. Gantz and Eisenkot's subsequent departure from the government fueled claims that Netanyahu was prolonging the war for political reasons.
The author asserts that the government's decision to invade Gaza before securing the hostages' return was widely accepted, creating a broad coalition supporting the war. This acceptance, she suggests, was facilitated by the narrative that military pressure was the key to their release. The deaths of dozens of Israeli civilians in Hamas captivity are not attributed to the failure of this equation but rather to Netanyahu's alleged political calculations, which critics claim prevented a deal.
Ben Yehuda posits that this narrative created a "displacement" where the war and extensive destruction in Gaza were processed by the Israeli collective consciousness as an existential concern for the hostages. This humanitarian discourse, she explains, was redirected inward, transforming the concern for loved ones into a justification for destruction. The true motivation for military action, according to the author, was not solely the hostages' return but the creation of consensus for Gaza's destruction, serving to restore Israeli dominance and avenge the October 7 attacks.
Criticism, such as that voiced by former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon regarding potential war crimes against Gazans, is noted but deemed insufficient for not connecting these acts to the equation that military pressure supersedes hostage lives. Ben Yehuda concludes that the Israeli right, by not pretending to humanitarianism, morally surpassed the center, which failed to acknowledge the hostages' sacrifice and the true objective of destroying Gaza. This collective denial, she argues, prevents confronting the responsibility for the ongoing destruction and the war's true aims.