POL 130: Gaza/Israel War Concepts

Terrorism as Provocation

terrorism is often used to provoke an overreaction by a stronger opponent:

• weaker actor ( Hamas )

• they cannot defeat Israeli military

• uses violence against civilians to: trigger harsh response, radicalize populations, undermine moderates, collapse the status quo

EX: October 7th Attack:

• Hamas knew Israel would respond massively

• provocation aimed to: end “mowing grass” (Israeli attacks), force Gaza back to the center of politics,

• violence as a strategic signaling

• Hamas Perspective: “if nothing changes, we loose anyway”

• Hamas expecting Israel to give a harsh response especially on civilians so there is international pressure on Israel and they can shift the blame and narrative

Netanyahu and Coalition Politics

• Netanyahu leads a fragile right-wing Coalition ( very anti-Palestine)

• very strong motivation to stay in power ( criminal indictment) - will go to jail if not in power

• he has to keep his coalition happy, even if he wants a ceasfire but his coalition don’t, he can’t do anything about it

Constructivism/Identity

• a person’s identity, ethnicity is very important/central to them

Israel:

• holocaust memory

• wants permanent security, there is a lot of mistrust

Palestinian

• muslim

• both fighting over the holy mosque

Civil War & Commitment Problems

Why Gaza looks like civil war dynamics:

• civil war ( when conflict happens within a single state)

• Hamas governs Gaza

• Israel controls borders and airspace

• not fully interstate, not fully domestic

Commitment Problem:

• Israel cannot trust Hamas to not rearm

• Hamas cannot trust Israel not to: maintain blockade, reoccupy Gaza

• even if ceasefire is achieved, both expected to cheat later

• makes durable settlements really hard

Bargaining Failure

Bargaining Model Logic:

War occurs when..

• commitment prob, no acceptable deal - Hamas believed violence can help its bargaining position

• both sides thought they can do better fighting than to bargain

What’s the bargaining range?

Gaza:

• Israel demands: destruction of Hamas, security dominance

• Hamas demands: end to blockade, survival and legitimacy

• demands don’t overlap — bargaining range basically nonexistent

Was there ever a bargaining space?

Two ways:

A) Bargaining space existed but collapsed

• before october 7th

• status quo was a bad bargain

• Hamas shut it deliberately

B) No bargain space existed

• core issues: security vs sovereignty were indivisible

• commitment problems too severe

• identities too important

• never a stable bargaining space without 3rd party involvement