Editor’s note: This piece was updated to revise death totals in an attack.
What did they hope to accomplish? Did they honestly believe murdering innocent men, women and children would further their cause?
Military analysts and the general public have been struggling to make sense of the devastating attack that left 1,400 Israelis dead and indelibly etched images of horror into the minds of so many people.
The answer to these perplexing questions lies in understanding the nature of violent extremism and how it differs from conventional war. What seems like an act of senseless violence to outside observers has a peculiar logic within that unconventional framework.
For two centuries Western armies have based military strategy on the writings of the Prussian theorist Carl von Clausewitz. “War is a real political instrument,” he wrote in his famous treatise “On War,” adding that it is “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.”
Clausewitz explained in great detail how military force must be employed to attain specific political objectives, such as the conquest of territory or the elimination of a potential threat. The amount of force employed must be commensurate with the importance of the objective, but violence should never be an end in itself.
This rational approach to conflict may help us to understand Russian objectives in Ukraine, but it provides little insight into the war over Gaza.
Putin wants to conquer Ukraine as a step toward rebuilding the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. Though it now seems likely to fail, the February 2022 invasion made political sense to him at the time, even though it was a wanton act of aggression.
As its charter clearly states, Hamas seeks to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. The invasion and subsequent massacres hardly seem calculated to further that objective. In fact, they would appear to have damaged its cause, perhaps irreparably, and given its enemy a valid reason to strike back with overwhelming force.
Organizations like Hamas, however, do not use violence to achieve concrete objectives on the battlefield. They use it to create ideological narratives that promote their cause no matter how hopeless it may seem to outsiders.
Extremist groups begin with a grievance narrative. They tap into deep feelings of injustice, often real, sometimes imaginary.
For the Palestinians of Gaza, the grievance narrative is writ large over the land they believe has been systematically stolen from them over the past 75 years, compounded by the crushing poverty of their daily lives. All Palestinian activists and extremists need to do is publicize it.
Once the story of injustice is firmly established, extremist groups create an empowerment narrative, a story that tells their followers that they are not helpless victims.
They pen the grievance narrative in ink, the empowerment narrative in blood. Terrorism serves that purpose well, which is why 19th century anarchists called it “propaganda of the deed.”
For years, Hamas could do little more than fire rockets into Israel. Those attacks led Israel to seal off Gaza, turning it into what the United Nations called “the world’s largest open-air prison.” Living conditions for Palestinians got worse, but Hamas kept hope alive. As long as the struggle continued, things might someday change.
Then came the Oct. 7 invasion. Though it did not alter the balance of power, the horrific attack did achieve one important political goal: It put the Palestinian cause back onto the front page.
In the long run, it might also accomplish something else: undermining the credibility of the Netanyahu government.
For the present, Israel holds the moral high ground, but as the war grinds on, casualties mount, and footage of Palestinian parents carrying the bodies of their children push images of murdered Israelis off television screens, that may change.
Israel is already coming under criticism for the intensity of its attack on Gaza. No matter how much it tries to minimize civilian casualties, scenes of shattered buildings make its bombing and shelling look indiscriminate.
The U.N. has warned of a looming humanitarian crisis and asked Israel to rescind its demand that refugees flee northern Gaza, probably as a prelude to a ground invasion.
Israel will destroy Hamas, but that will not end the violence. As long as the ideological narrative survives, it will inspire new extremists. The U.S. wrecked al-Qaeda and ended up with ISIS.
An end to violent extremism requires countering the narrative that drives it. Words alone do not suffice. People with legitimate grievances will not be talked out of them.
Even the staunchest supporters of Israel should realize that Palestinians have been deprived of land so that Israel can build more settlements and denied equal opportunity in virtually all areas of social and economic life. The way forward is to give them hope for a better future.
That process will begin with the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Once the Israeli Defense Forces root out Hamas, in what promises to be a grueling street-by-street, house-by-house battle, they will need to govern the city.
Past experience makes abundantly clear that brief, punitive incursions do nothing but increase the body count and add to the legacy of bitterness.
To help ensure a lasting peace, Gaza must be rebuilt, and its residents must be given some opportunity for improved quality of life. Israel cannot do this alone. It will require a massive infusion of international aid and the sustained presence of humanitarian and relief organizations.
The United States has a vital role to play. President Biden rightly assured Israel that we would support it and if necessary, defend its right to exist. It is now time for him to play the role of mediator, as Jimmy Carter did with the Camp David Accords.
We have long supplied Israel with the means to make war. We must now equip it to make peace.
Tom Mockaitis is a professor of history at DePaul University and the author of “Violent Extremists: Understanding the Domestic and International Terrorist Threat.”