By Matt Underwood Hamas’s meticulously planned October 7th attack stemmed from seven years of intelligence gathering in Gaza border towns. This extensive operation allowed them to compile a detailed dossier on Israeli civilian life, including the precise locations of residences, the presence of pets, family sizes, and the security measures in place at kibbutzim.
This level of detail suggests a long-term strategy, far exceeding a simple, spur-of-the-moment attack. The sheer volume of information gathered indicates a calculated plan, meticulously executed over years of observation and infiltration. The knowledge acquired was clearly meant for strategic targeting.
The surprising aspect isn’t the attack itself, but Hamas’s apparent miscalculation of Israel’s response. They seemingly underestimated Israel’s capacity for retaliation and the global condemnation that would follow a mass-casualty attack on civilians. Their expectation of a relatively mild response proved to be wildly inaccurate.
The planning was not only thorough but also brazen. The fact that warnings were given, including leaked emails containing very descriptive details of the planned attack, only underscores the audacity of their actions. The fact these warnings were ignored speaks volumes about the confidence of the Hamas leadership in their own plans.
Hamas’s strategy also appears to have factored in the predictable international backlash against Israel’s inevitable response. They seemed to bank on this to galvanize global support for their cause, believing that images of civilian casualties in Gaza would outweigh the condemnation of their actions. It is quite possible their strategy was designed to generate a response from Israel that they could then use in the global media to portray Israel in a bad light.
The scale of the hostage-taking was unprecedented, exceeding anything Hamas had attempted before. It indicates a shift in strategy, a calculated escalation designed to maximize impact and generate the desired international reaction. Yet, this bold gamble severely misjudged Israel’s resolve and the nature of the international response.
The assertion that Hamas intended to provoke Israel into destroying Gaza, even at the cost of countless Gazan lives, is a chilling possibility. If this was their objective, it suggests a calculated strategy of using their own people as human shields, a deeply cynical approach to achieving their goals. This would imply they are willing to sacrifice their people in order to advance their cause, viewing them as expendable pawns in a larger, long-term conflict.
Furthermore, there’s the question of external support. The role of countries like Iran and Russia remains unclear, but there’s significant speculation about their involvement, whether in providing funding, training, or strategic guidance. This points to the possibility that Hamas’s operation wasn’t isolated, but part of a broader, coordinated campaign driven by external forces.
One might wonder about the possible involvement of other actors, like Qatar. It’s been suggested that allowing funding to Hamas was a mistake, a miscalculation that inadvertently contributed to this crisis. While it may not be direct causation, it certainly raises important questions about regional geopolitics and responsibility.
Ultimately, Hamas’s actions, while devastating, were not unforeseen. The signs were there, warnings were disregarded, and even the details of the planned operation were known in advance. The shock lies not in the event itself, but in the staggering miscalculation of its consequences, both for Hamas and the Palestinian population caught in the crossfire. The long-term intelligence gathering, the scale of the attack, and the disregard for warnings paint a picture of a calculated risk that ultimately backfired. The belief in external support and Western pressure seemed to greatly underestimate the determination of the Israeli response.