WHEN Hamas launched its surprise attack on Israel, they released several videos that many people found disturbing. Some of these were reportedly fake but at this point, it doesn’t matter. Hamas’ videos were designed to send a message: They are dangerous. They are deadly.
But are they really?
Despite their videos, their attack and the clips of said attack were largely performative. Consider what these videos were supposed to accomplish?
Anger the Israelis? They have certainly done that.
Polarize international opinion? They’ve done that too.
Trigger a massive Israeli retaliation? They’ve done that, and undermine regional stability at the same time.
Of all these goals, I consider only the third point as having any political importance but even that sounds irrelevant.
Sure, an Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip will be a blood bath, and it will undermine the Jewish State’s attempts at normalizing relationships with the Saudis but ultimately, these are just setbacks. So the more I examine Hamas’ gore clips, the more I feel like they were just lashing out, and lashing out is a losing strategy.
Effective violence, when used as a political tool, must lead to the acquisition of power, space or concessions. If it does not lead to that result then it is a waste of time and effort.
So what power does Hamas gain by showing their gore videos? Little in my opinion, and people like that are not dangerous; not deadly. They are the little fish trying to hurt the big fish.
It’s the same with most other terrorist attacks. They are either one-off events or something that happens very rarely.
Meanwhile, large players take advantage of the aftermath, either to push their own agenda, promote some new law, push new deals or to smear their rivals on the public space.
It is these who benefit from the attack; not those who lashed out, and inevitably who end up dead, martyred or gone to ground./PN
