Photo: A combined portrait of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh ( R) and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah. Israel assassinated both with Iran’s help. Haniyeh was killed in Tehran while being a guest of The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp( IRGC) and Nasrallah was killed while having a meeting with an Iranian General at an undisclosed location in Beirut. Nasrallah’s boss Esmail Qaani ( The head of the Quds force) who reportedly spied for Israel disclosed Nasrallah’s location
By: Ya Libnan Editorial Board
The October 7 attack by Hamas shocked the world with its unprecedented scale and brutality, resulting in the deaths of 1,139 Israelis, according to Israeli reports. However, the massive and disproportionate Israeli retaliation—which has killed over 44,500 Palestinians and caused widespread devastation in Gaza—raises questions about the true motivations and goals behind this conflict. Could the events of October 7 be part of a broader strategy by Israel, echoing a historical pattern of using provocations to achieve long-term objectives? This theory warrants exploration, especially in light of past conflicts where similar dynamics appear to have played out.
Historical Parallels: A Pattern of Strategic Traps?
Israel’s military history includes instances where provocations—real or perceived—were used as pretexts for achieving territorial and strategic gains. Two key examples from the Six-Day War of 1967 illustrate this pattern:
The Loss of the Golan Heights (Syria):
In 1967, tensions between Israel and Syria escalated, culminating in the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights—a region of immense strategic importance. Hafez al-Assad, then Syria’s Minister of Defense, appeared to have been drawn into a conflict that Israel was well-prepared for, allowing it to claim the territory and significantly weaken Syria.
The Sinai Peninsula (Egypt):
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s closure of the Straits of Tiran and mobilization of troops in the Sinai provided Israel with a pretext for a preemptive strike. Within days, Israel destroyed Egypt’s air force and occupied Sinai, achieving a decisive military and territorial victory while devastating Nasser’s forces.
In both cases, Israel emerged with minimal losses relative to its adversaries, solidifying its dominance in the region. Critics argue these events were not merely opportunistic but potentially engineered to provoke overreactions that justified Israel’s decisive responses.
The October 7 Attack: A Trap for Hamas and Hezbollah?
Fast forward to 2023, and the question arises: Could the October 7 attack by Hamas have been similarly exploited—or even anticipated—by Israel to achieve strategic objectives? Several factors suggest this possibility:
- Hamas’s Unlikely Gamble:
The attack was unprecedented in its scope, but what could Hamas realistically hope to achieve against a far superior military power? The massive and predictable Israeli retaliation has decimated Gaza, destroyed Hamas’s infrastructure, and inflicted staggering civilian casualties. Was this an uncalculated misstep by Hamas, or was it a provocation that Israel was prepared for? - Hezbollah’s Costly Involvement:
Hezbollah’s decision to join the conflict from southern Lebanon has also come at a steep price. The group has suffered significant losses, including high-ranking commanders, weakening its long-term capabilities. If neutralizing Hezbollah was part of Israel’s strategic calculus, this war has advanced that goal significantly.
Strategic Objectives: What Could Israel Gain?
If the October 7 attack was indeed exploited—or even allowed to happen—it could serve several Israeli strategic objectives:
- Eliminating Hamas and Reoccupying Gaza:
Israel’s military campaign has systematically targeted Hamas’s leadership and infrastructure, aiming to dismantle the group entirely. By creating a governance vacuum, Israel could justify reoccupying Gaza, with some voices within Israel already advocating for annexation or long-term military control. - Weakening Hezbollah and Iran’s Influence:
Drawing Hezbollah into a costly conflict serves Israel’s long-standing objective of weakening the Iran-backed group, which has been a major military threat on its northern border. A degraded Hezbollah also undermines Iran’s influence in the region. - Reshaping the Regional Landscape:
By neutralizing Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel could shift the balance of power in the Middle East, isolating Iran further and solidifying its own security and territorial ambitions. This aligns with broader goals of maintaining regional dominance.
Historical and Current Numbers: A Calculated Strategy?
The disproportionate casualty figures in Israel’s conflicts often highlight a pattern of overwhelming retaliation. In the Six-Day War, Israel lost approximately 1,000 soldiers, while Arab states suffered over 20,000 casualties. Today, the numbers are similarly stark: over 44,500 Palestinians have been killed, compared to 1,139 Israelis. Such asymmetry suggests a calculated strategy: using provocations or attacks as a pretext for decisive, long-term actions.
Counterarguments: Risks and Consequences
While the “trap” theory is compelling, it is important to consider counterarguments and the inherent risks involved. October 7 could have backfired, potentially drawing in regional powers like Iran or Syria and igniting a wider war.
Conclusion: A Legacy of Strategic Opportunism
Whether or not Israel engineered or anticipated the October 7 attack, its response fits a historical pattern of leveraging provocations to achieve broader strategic objectives. From the Six-Day War to today’s conflict, Israel has consistently used crises to expand its territorial control, weaken its adversaries, and consolidate its regional dominance.
The outcomes of this war—a devastated Gaza, a weakened Hamas, and heavy losses for Hezbollah—align closely with Israel’s long-term goals. But as the region continues to suffer the devastating consequences of these cycles of violence, the question remains: How many more lives will be sacrificed in the name of strategy? And is there a path to a Middle East free from this legacy of provocation, retaliation, and endless conflict?