When Israel declared war against Hamas on 8th October, a lot of Western media coverage and the initial reaction on social media presented this as an even-handed conflict. But it’s not. The Israel-Hamas war is a clear example of “asymmetric warfare”.
NOTE on the language used in this article, and indeed all news coverage of this topic:
- ‘Israel’ refers to Israel’s government – this word is not a stand-in for the global Jewish population nor for Israeli people.
- ‘Hamas’ refers to the political military group, the Islamic Resistance Movement. It is not a stand-in for Palestinian people nor the Arab population. It is not a government. Hamas is not universally considered a terrorist organisation – the U.S. and E.U. classify it as a terrorist organisation, but the U.N. does not.
- No all Palestinians are Muslim.
- Not all Jewish people in the world are Israelis.
- While stopping the immediate violence and displacement is the short-term focus, this will not solve the underlying issue of territorial claim and Palestinian sovereignty. This article won’t cover that issue, but you can get a solid, basic understanding in just 10 minutes with this Vox video.
What is asymmetric warfare?
It’s a straightforward concept. Asymmetric warfare is when there is a significant power imbalance between the two fighting forces, typically when one side has a lot more resources than the other. It also applies when the war is between a nation-state with a formalised government and military on one side, and a non-government group like a militant group, insurgents or rebels.
In this case, Israel is a nation state fully recognised by the international system, with a formal government and military. Hamas is a militant group and political party (the U.S and EU classify it as a terrorist organisation), and although it controls Gaza it is not a government nor does it have a military. Hence, asymmetric conflict.
The war in Afghanistan (2001) and U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003) are two other famously asymmetric conflicts you’ve probably heard of.
What it means for your understanding of the Israel-Hamas war
Right now, a lot of media coverage of the 7th October Hamas’ attack and Israel response is presenting the conflict as if it is symmetrical. But it’s not, and that distinction is important.
The impact of different resources from a military perspective is obvious; a man with a gun vs a man with a lasso is not a fair fight. In asymmetrical warfare, the current international system heavily favours the more structured, formalised side – in this case, Israel. And that systemic advantage is arguably even more powerful. We can see it playing out already in multiple ways:
DECLARING WAR: It starts with the very concept of ‘war’ itself. As a formally recognised nation-state, Israel is able to make a declaration of war that will be taken seriously by other countries and international bodies. This means that war exists on their terms and timing. In an ‘official’ sense, the war only starts when they say so. It’s a decision that can be used strategically.
On the other hand, Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank do not have the ability to do this. If they also had a clearly established government, able to fully participate in international systems, they might have declared that Israel was committing acts of war against them at any point in the past 17 or more years. But the Palestinian Authority (the governing body of Gaza and the West Bank) does not have these powers.
MEDIA COVERAGE: Who ‘gets’ to declare war then heavily influences media coverage. IDF or Israeli police violence on Palestinian civilians, children, journalists and humanitarian workers are typically covered in Western media as individual incidents. It is part of the ongoing reporting on the crisis in the region. By invoking the word ‘war’, Israel is able to demand a certain level of coverage from major news organisations. With this context, the horrific killing of more than 260 young Israelis by Hamas rockets at the Supernova music festival is covered as a war crime.
JUSTIFICATION OF ACTIONS: As a government recognised by international bodies, Israel also has the ability to pre-emptively justify its actions. On 13 October, Israel “gave notice” to the U.N. that the 1.1 million people in north Gaza should relocate to the south within 24 hours (to avoid an attack). It’s a strategy that allows them to later claim they have conducted their war operations in a fairer, more humane way and tried to avoid civilian casualties unlike their ‘barbaric’ opponents. This justification can be used regardless of whether the notice given was ever practical to begin with (not to mention a way that Israel blames Palestinians for their own deaths, by issuing orders that are impossible to follow).
Hamas is not a government body, it is not a member of the U.N., so the same justification strategies are not available to them.
SUPPORT & INTERVENTION: In warfare between two formally recognised states, both sides are able to call on allies for military, aid, economic or diplomatic support. In an asymmetric conflict like this Israel-Hamas war, only Israel has formal state relationships to call on. The Israel government has partnerships with all other major governments, which is why countries including Australia, the U.S. and U.K. immediately spoke up in support. The strength of the relationship determines how much support and intervention an ally will provide – Australia controversially sent our own military to assist the U.S. asymmetric wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To reiterate, Hamas is not a formally governing body so it does not have the same kind of relationships to call on. The Palestinian cause is being supported by other countries in the region, particularly Egypt which shares a border with Israel and the Gaza strip. Egypt has stated it wants de-escalation, is happy to be the mediator, and it ultimately supports Palestinian decolonisation.
Governments will only ever intervene on behalf of other governments, whether the power balance is more equal. A foreign government will only ever go so far in trying to stop atrocities (or in this case, apartheid) committed against an ‘unrepresented’ group of people. It has been the case for the Rohingyas in Myanmar, Uighyr Muslims in China, Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and asylum seekers in Australia.
However, they will do much more to support an ‘equal’ (i.e.: another formally governed state) that says it is being attacked.
@yabrownnigerianmuslim ♬ original sound – AliB313
What’s the takeaway here?
We know that maintaining international attention on human rights abuses does make a difference. It’s not the only component, but it’s an important one because violent regimes would prefer to conduct their atrocities unnoticed.
Engaging in an asymmetric war against Hamas means Israel has ‘justification’ to continue its abuses against the Palestinian people. Retaliating against Hamas was immediately used as the excuse to kill 2215 Palestinian civilians including 224 children (at time of writing); deprive them of food, water, power and fuel; and demand that they leave their homes, in what little Palestinian territory they have remaining. It is highly likely Israel will use this same excuse to prevent any Palestinian who does leave now from ever returning, and will further restrict the rights of those who choose to remain.
From comfort and safety in Australia, it is our duty to make sure we are clear-eyed about the information we receive about the ongoing apartheid and genocide of Palestinian people. Australia’s relationship with Israel and our mainstream media outlets have not represented this ‘war’ or ‘conflict’ accurately. The Australian government represents us and acts on our behalf – when it uses diplomacy, funding or military support to assist another government, like Fiji, Sri Lanka, Ukraine or Israel, we have a right to know exactly what that means.
Smart people read more:
Are Israel and Hamas guilty of war crimes? – Al Jazeera
How Many Palestinians Have Been Displaced? The Numbers Behind the Israel-Palestine Crisis (2021)
Comments are closed.