The Great Delusion
For years, the international community viewed the conflict between Israel and Hamas through a binary lens: a sovereign state defending itself against a radical terrorist proxy. However, inside Israel, a far more cynical strategy was at play. Behind the public vows to ‘crush Hamas’, a hidden doctrine guided Benjamin Netanyahu’s governments for over a decade – one that viewed the jihadist group not as a threat to be eliminated, but as a ‘strategic asset’.
The assertion that Hamas is an ‘asset’ – a sentiment echoed by various members of Netanyahu’s successive governments – was no mere slip of the tongue. It was a foundational principle of a deliberate strategy, conducted through the deception of the Israeli public. While Hamas was presented as a bloodthirsty foe, no genuine effort was made to dismantle its rule. On the contrary, the Netanyahu years were the golden age of Hamas’s consolidation in Gaza. This strategy was never intended to bring about a decisive victory; its true goal was the avoidance of decision. By keeping Hamas in power, Israel ensured a state of perpetual paralysis, effectively blocking any possibility of a diplomatic process.
To Netanyahu, Hamas functioned as a stabilizing force: the stability of stagnation. Its presence in Gaza served as living proof that there is ‘no partner’ for peace, rendering any diplomatic initiative dead on arrival. Hamas was not a conscious partner in this pathological theater, but it played the role of the ‘ideal enemy’ to perfection – radical, violent, and uncompromising – providing the perfect justification for political deadlock. But such an alibi requires a dangerously precise ‘management of the conflict’.
The ‘Hamas is an asset’ doctrine rested on a fatal assumption: that Israel could control the height of the flames and the rationality of its enemy. It assumed that a jihadist-messianic movement would operate according to a Western logic – one that could be tamed through hollow threats or economic concessions. This created an imaginary system of ‘balances’, where the stronger power became a reactive captive to its weaker foe, all while ensuring that foe’s survival to protect a political deadlock.
The practical result of this deception was not only a betrayal of Israeli security but a profound political hypocrisy. While the leadership spoke of ‘deterrence’, it was systematically granting Hamas the time and functional legitimacy to build a fortress. A bizarre role reversal emerged: the stronger power became reactive to the initiatives of the weaker one, while simultaneously ensuring its survival.
This paradox created the very conditions for the catastrophe it was meant to prevent. The failure of October 7 was not merely operational; it was a profound conceptual collapse. The belief that a genocidal enemy could be kept as a ‘strategic asset’ without paying a devastating price proved to be a lethal delusion. That delusion shattered when 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered in a single day. Hamas refused to play its scripted role. The assumption that Hamas’s primary goal was mere political survival – a mirror image of Netanyahu’s own motivations – proved to be a catastrophic misreading of jihadist ideology.
Yet, even after months of a brutal war, the strategy of avoidance persists. From the vague war aims of ‘eroding capabilities’ to the adamant refusal to discuss a political alternative to Hamas rule, the government remains paralyzed by its own old logic. This strategy aligns with a domestic policy that frays social cohesion and undermines trust in state institutions. When there is no political future, there is no stable civilian present. Emergency becomes routine, and democracy itself is increasingly viewed as a dangerous luxury rather than a necessity.
The moral toll of this strategy is a form of institutionalized moral numbness. A state that accepts an entire population being held hostage by a terrorist organization – and tolerates it because it ‘serves a political interest’ – cheapens human life on both sides. This is no longer just a security failure; it is a crisis of identity. A society that grows accustomed to ‘managing the suffering’ of others gradually loses its capacity for responsibility – even toward itself.
