Playing Dead: The Common Tactic of Hamas and Pakistan’s Army

In the animal kingdom, there’s a peculiar creature called the opossum. It’s not particularly strong, fast, or armed with sharp claws. Yet, it survives. The opossum has developed one of the most unusual defense mechanisms known in nature: when threatened by a large animal, it plays dead. It collapses, foams at the mouth, and releases an odor of decay, making it appear lifeless to its predator. Once the threat is gone, the opossum gets up, as if claiming victory, and continues with its life.

This peculiar behavior often brings to mind the political and strategic posturing of certain groups when faced with defeat. In May 2021, Israel launched Operation Guardian of the Walls, responding to the barrage of rockets fired by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) from Gaza towards Israeli cities, including Jerusalem. Over the next 11 days, the Israeli Air Force carried out extensive airstrikes targeting Hamas infrastructure, including rocket-launching sites, command centers, and weapon depots. Despite the extensive damage inflicted on Gaza, including the destruction of key Hamas military infrastructure, Yahya Sinwar, then leader of Hamas in Gaza, emerged (metaphorically from the rubble) sitting in an armchair with a smile on his face amidst the destruction of his own home and claimed victory. This was not a victory, but a performance, meant to maintain morale among Hamas supporters. 

Sinwar’s narrative was carefully constructed, much like the opossum’s play-dead strategy. This illusion of strength through a narrative of manipulation is not limited to Hamas. It extends to other political entities, as evidenced by Pakistan’s response after having a major setback post the recent escalation with India. After the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 Indian tourists, India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, a precision strike targeting nine terrorist bases across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir: Markaz Taiba Camp, Markaz Subhan Camp, Mehmoona Joya Camp, Gulpur Camp, Sarjal Camp, Abbas Camp, Syedna Belal Camp, Sawai Nala Camp, and Barnala Camp. The sites were linked to groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Over 100 terrorists were reportedly killed, including 10 family members of Masood Azhar, the UN-designated terrorist and leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, and significant terrorist infrastructure was dismantled. What followed was a spectacle where the terrorists were given a state-like funeral, with the Pakistani military personnel in the background and Pakistani flags draped over their coffins. Notably, US-designated terrorist Hafiz Abdur Rauf led the funeral prayers in the ceremony.

Hafiz Abdur Rauf, a commander in Lashkar-e-Taiba and a US-designated global terrorist, led funeral prayers attended by Pakistan Army personnel, police, and other officials.

Pakistan, in response to the strike, began firing heavy artillery across the Line of Control (LoC), leading to the deaths of 15 civilians. It also launched drone attacks, targeting both military sites and civilian areas across major towns in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. Over three consecutive days, it fired hundreds of Turkish-made drones and missiles (some Chinese-made PL-15 long-range air-to-air missiles) at Indian air bases. Most of the drones and missiles were intercepted by India’s robust air defense system.

India’s response was careful and measured, focusing on military targets while avoiding civilian casualties and further escalation. India struck military bases and Pakistan’s air defense systems. Within three hours, 11 major military bases were struck, including Nur Khan (Chaklala), Rafiqui, Murid, Sukkur, Sialkot, Pasrur, Chunian, Sargodha, Skardu, Bholari, and Jacobabad, sending a clear message about India’s defensive capabilities and exposing the weakness of Pakistan’s air defense. Despite Pakistan’s claims of shooting down Indian jets and firing missiles at military targets, it has yet to provide any credible evidence of damage, and India has not acknowledged these claims either. The situation quickly descended into a battle of misinformation, with both sides using social media and fake news to present a false narrative of events. Videos from past conflicts, including the Israel-Gaza war, were recycled to mislead the public and bolster false claims.

Satellite image showing damage to Pakistan’s Nur Khan air base following Indian airstrike. (Courtesy: Damien Symon)

Despite suffering significant losses and the Indian Air Force targeting military assets in every major Pakistani city: Islamabad/Rawalpindi, Lahore, Sialkot, Sargodha, and Karachi—Pakistan’s government was quick to present its response as a victory. After the US-mediated pause between India and Pakistan on May 10, the Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif declared that Pakistan had emerged victorious, claiming that “Pakistanis are a self-reliant nation” and that any attack on their sovereignty would lead to a defensive response of unparalleled strength. However, Pakistan’s narrative was not about acknowledging the military failure; it was about creating the illusion of a victory in spite of the fact that the Pakistani Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) was the first to contact his Indian counterpart for a ceasefire. Sharif’s public address echoed the rhetoric of victory and strength that Sinwar had used, despite the undeniable losses Pakistan had suffered. The Indian army reported the loss of 5 Indian soldiers, while it is estimated that 35 to 40 Pakistani military personnel lost their lives in artillery and small arms fire along the LoC between May 7 and May 10. The Pakistani army continued to violate the ceasefire on May 10 as firing across the LoC continued and drones swarmed over Indian cities. The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while addressing the nation on May 12, made it clear that any future terror attack from Pakistan would cross a red line, and India would take decisive action in response.

Apart from the deception using fake narratives, there are several troubling similarities between the  tactics and strategies of Hamas and the Pakistani army. First, there is the undeniable parallel in how both groups utilize civilians as shields. Hamas, throughout its operations, has habitually launched rockets from densely populated civilian areas, ensuring that any Israeli retaliation would result in civilian casualties, making it harder for Israel to respond without international condemnation. Similarly, during the recent escalation with India, the Pakistani military used the same tactic by launching drones, keeping civilian airspace open, and allowing civilian flights to continue. This made it incredibly challenging for Indian forces to effectively counter the attack without risking civilian lives. 

The second observation is the intentional targeting of civilian areas by both Hamas and the Pakistani military. Just as Hamas has deliberately attacked civilian spaces in Israel, Pakistan’s military has employed similar tactics, particularly through the use of drones to target densely populated civilian zones. For instance, in Ferozepur, Punjab (India), a drone strike resulted in significant damage to a residential home and left three family members injured, highlighting the indiscriminate nature of such attacks. 

The final observation is that the ideological opposition that runs through both Hamas and the Pakistani state is a key driver in shaping their actions against their adversaries. Hamas, as outlined in its 1988 charter, has made it clear that its war against Israel will persist until the state is eliminated—a deeply entrenched and extreme view that mirrors the founding principles of Pakistan. The creation of Pakistan was based on the idea of the two-nation theory, which posited that Muslims were fundamentally different from Hindus (in India) and therefore needed a separate homeland. This ideology formed the very foundation of Pakistan’s existence, and the issue of Kashmir has always been a mere side-effect of this broader conflict. It is an issue that will persist, even if a resolution is found to Kashmir’s status. In fact, as the current Director General of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Ahmed Sharif Chaudhary revealed in a press conference about their army’s ideology “Islam is not only a part of our personal beliefs but also a part of our training, faith, and ethos. Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi-Sabilillah—this is what drives us, this is our motto.” As long as this ideology persists and the Pakistani army continues to act as the protector of this ideological boundary, efforts to dismantle terrorist infrastructure will remain only a temporary solution.

Ultimately, like the opossum’s deceptive act of playing dead, these regimes rely on the illusion of victory and strength to survive politically. However, the truth has a way of emerging gradually, despite their best efforts to hide it. In an era defined by technology, internet connectivity, and the rapid spread of information, satellite images, videos from ordinary citizens, and independent journalism will gradually expose the truth and bring it into the public domain. As this information becomes more accessible, these carefully crafted narratives will lose their grip and the truth will become unavoidable.