By Fedelis Fengu
The brutal October 7 attacks by Hamas marked a turning point in the Gaza-Israel conflict, and as the dust settles under a fragile ceasefire, questions are emerging about whether Israel has fallen into the strategic trap Hamas appears to have set.
Hamas’ offensive was highly coordinated. By striking Israeli civilian targets and then retreating, the group effectively provoked Israel into retaliation while minimizing its own casualties by withdrawing behind densely populated areas. The heavy civilian toll in Gaza has amplified the impact globally, allowing Hamas to portray itself as the victim while using human shields to shield fighters. The focus became Israel’s retaliation not the October 7 provocation, from the UN to African Union global and regional groups condemned Israel and very few mentioned the October 7 attacks.
Hamas’ strategy has created a perception of disproportionate aggression, particularly following the killing of an Israeli soldier during the ceasefire period and the Israeli retaliation that followed. Israel’s subsequent airstrikes against Hamas infrastructure risk reinforcing the “aggressor” narrative and undermining the credibility of U.S.-brokered peace agreements.
Domestically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces declining approval ratings, and the perception that his government is mishandling Gaza has intensified political tensions. Hamas’ provocations appear to amplify this internal discontent, weakening Israeli leadership and giving Hamas moral and diplomatic leverage internationally.
Analysts argue that Israel may need to shift toward more covert measures, including targeted operations against key Hamas figures, cyber and intelligence campaigns, and quiet coordination with regional allies to reduce visible civilian casualties and minimize media backlash. Every overt retaliation plays into Hamas’ narrative: Israel as the aggressor, Hamas as the victim, and civilians caught in the crossfire.
Hamas appears to have refined its strategy: provoke Israel, retreat, hide behind civilians, and exploit global media and diplomacy to isolate Israel. The recent killing of an Israeli soldier during the ceasefire underscores that the group is willing to test Israel’s restraint, knowing that any large-scale retaliation can be spun as a PR victory.
For Israel, the conflict now extends beyond the battlefield. Military might alone cannot win the narrative. To preserve international legitimacy and domestic stability, Israel may need to adopt a more nuanced, covert approach while continuing to degrade Hamas’ operational capabilities. As the ceasefire holds, the real battlefield may increasingly be in media, perception, and diplomacy, where Hamas currently holds the upper hand.
