Introduction
Individuals and groups are frequently driven by underlying motivations — internal forces that guide behavior. These are often referred to as “causes.” Motivations serve as primary drivers behind a wide range of behaviors, including those that are harmful or morally questionable. Importantly, a single motivation can lead to multiple behaviors, and a specific behavior may arise from various motivations. While “motivation” denotes a broad category of internal forces prompting action. For this reason, I will use the term cause to refer to the distinct forces driving particular actions.
Before examining the behaviours of the sides on October 7, and in its aftermath, there are some general principles of human behaviours in times of conflict that should be understood.
Intentionality Behind Immorality — Even the most immoral acts are not arbitrary; they are intentional, often shaped by ideological motivations and systemic factors, with consequences that may be both latent and unpredictable.
Differentiation Between Rivals — Both sides of violent conflict deny wrongdoing but emphasise their collective self-glorification. They ignore their own immoral behaviour and stress the atrocities of the rival, and they focus on their moral actions and heroism and ignore humane behaviour by the rival.
Denial of Crimes Against Humanity — Societies engaged in violence and wars often carry out crimes against humanity, including atrocities, mass killing, collective rapes, intentional starvation, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide. They avoid admitting to them by using a variety of psychological mechanisms such as denial, repression, apathy, or intellectualization.
Mutual Delegitimization — Rivals in protracted, intractable conflicts consistently delegitimize one another, thereby providing moral justification for violence, including the targeting and killing of civilians.
Obedience to Authority — Soldiers in conventional armies often exhibit near-total obedience to orders, including those that violate basic moral norms and international humanitarian law.
Moral Collapse in Asymmetric Conflict — Asymmetric warfare frequently results in violations of moral codes and international law, with the militarily dominant party often committing disproportionate harm under the guise of security or deterrence.
War as a Catalyst for Authoritarianism — Prolonged conflict often serves as a pretext for the rise of authoritarian regimes. Authoritarian rulers prolong wars as a means of consolidating power, silencing dissent, avoiding accountability, and distracting from internal political or legal crises through misrepresentation of national emergency and security imperatives. They also tend to prioritize personal political survival and ideological agendas over the needs and well-being of the citizenry.
Realpolitik Over Morality — State behaviour is driven more by political, military, and economic self-interests than by moral principles or international legal obligations. This results in weak responses to genocide and war crimes, particularly when superpowers are involved.
Four Critical Questions About the Sides in the Gaza War
In the context of the ongoing war in Gaza, four critical questions arise — each central to understanding the causes behind the behaviors of the involved parties. These are the questions I will attempt to answer:
1. What motivated the Hamas leadership to launch the attack on Israel?
2. Why did Hamas resort to such inhumane and morally reprehensible methods in executing the attack?
3. How can Israelis justify the killing, wounding, and starvation of civilians—including children, mothers, and fathers — as well as the destruction of approximately 70% of buildings in the Gaza Strip?
4. What motivates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to prolong the war, even at the cost of failing to secure the release of the 50 Israeli hostages who remain in Hamas captivity?
Background to the Gaza War
On October 7, 2023, a constitutive event occurred that profoundly reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On that day, Hamas — an Islamist movement and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip since 2006, operating as an authoritarian regime — launched a surprise attack on Israeli civilian communities and military installations near the Gaza border. Approximately 3,000 Hamas militants, accompanied by an estimated 2,200 Gazan civilians, participated in the incursion. Exploiting the element of surprise, the attackers killed approximately 890 Israeli civilians of all ages and genders, along with around 370 members of the Israeli military and security forces. In addition, 251 individuals — including children, women, elderly civilians and foreign nationals — were abducted and taken into Gaza. It was inhumane carnage that involved rape, wounding, and mutilation.
In response, Israeli forces launched a large-scale military operation against Gaza, beginning with aerial bombardments and later deploying ground troops. Concurrently, Hamas fired thousands of rockets toward Israeli urban centers, ranging from southern Israel to Tel Aviv and as far north as Herzliya, prompting mass displacement. Over 74,000 Israelis from southern communities were forced to evacuate, with many losing their homes. As of August 15, 2025, the conflict remains ongoing. Approximately 200 hostages have been released in prisoner exchanges involving Palestinian detainees. The war has resulted in significant loss of life among both soldiers and civilians.
The humanitarian toll on Gaza’s civilian population has been catastrophic. As of August 15, 2025, approximately 62,000 Palestinians — including children, women, and the elderly — have been reported killed, with an estimated 6,000 more presumed dead beneath the rubble, and about 155,000 wounded. These casualties represent roughly 3% of Gaza’s population of 2.1 million. Physical destruction has been extensive: Approximately 70% of Gaza’s buildings—including hospitals, schools, mosques, universities, and public institutions — have been damaged or destroyed. Many Gazans have experienced repeated displacement and are now confined to less than 14% of Gaza’s 365 square km. Reports indicate widespread starvation alongside the near-total collapse of the healthcare system. Some experts assert that the scale and nature of the destruction constitutes genocide; others frame it as amounting to crimes against humanity under international law.
The casualty toll among Israeli soldiers since the beginning of the ground operation is 454 fatalities and 2,872 injuries as of August 15, 2025, according to the Israeli military.
Why Did Hamas Carry Out the Attack on Israel?
The first critical question concerns the motivations behind Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7. Hamas has refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli state, based on its Islamist ideology that rejects the two-state solution. Hamas’s foundational objective has been the liberation of Palestine through armed resistance.
Hamas has developed into a nationalist-Islamist organization, combining ideological rigidity with a willingness to use military means to achieve its objectives. Hamas received significant financial support — reportedly amounting to nearly $1 billion — from Qatar, with the tacit approval of Netanyahu. This strategy aimed to maintain a division between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank — a classic divide-and-rule approach.
The October 7 attack had been in preparation for at least a year under the leadership of Yahya Sinwar, commander of the Hamas military wing who was assassinated by Israel on October 16, 2024, and Muhammad Deif, the Hamas military chief, assassinated by Israel in July 2024. The causes behind Hamas’s decision to launch the attack are multifaceted:
1. Demonstrating Military Capability in Asymmetric Warfare Hamas sought to showcase its capacity to plan and execute a highly coordinated and sophisticated military operation against what it views as a regional superpower.
2. Desperation and the Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza Life under the siege imposed on Gaza since 2007, has created unbearable conditions for its residents. The blockade has stifled development, devastated the economy, and contributed to profound hopelessness. For many in Gaza, Hamas’s action was seen as an attempt — however extreme — to break the siege and reclaim agency.
3. Asserting Political Dominance Within Palestinian Society Hamas aimed to reassert its leadership of the Palestinian national movement and gain legitimization within Palestinian society, positioning itself as the true representative of Palestinian resistance.
4. Rejection of Diplomacy in Favor of Armed Struggle The longstanding failure of peace negotiations convinced the Hamas leadership that armed resistance, rather than diplomacy, was the only effective means of achieving political goals. By kidnapping Israelis, Hamas hoped to force concessions.
5. Delegitimizing Mahmoud Abbas and the PA The PA under Mahmoud Abbas was widely viewed as corrupt, ineffective, and complicit in maintaining the status quo. The attack thus aimed to expose the impotence and collaborationist tendencies of Abbas.
6. Provoking a Prolonged War to Internationalize the Conflict One of Hamas’s objectives was to provoke a long-lasting Israeli military response in order to draw international attention to the Palestinian cause. The attack succeeded in reigniting global discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which had been largely sidelined by Arab governments, the West, and the broader international community.
7. Palestinian Political Vacuum and Public Disillusionment Since 2009, Israeli governments have refused to engage in meaningful negotiations, while settlement expansion, ongoing apartheid and annexation, the Gaza blockade, settler violence, incursions into Palestinian cities, provocations at Al-Aqsa Mosque (Haram al-Sharif), and rhetoric threatening a second Nakba (catastrophe) have deepened Palestinian despair. For Hamas, this context provided both justification and support for a renewed violent campaign.
8. Securing the Release of Palestinian Prisoners The mass abduction of Israeli civilians was partly a strategic move to negotiate the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. This issue remains a deeply emotional and unifying cause for Palestinians, and one the PA has failed to address meaningfully.
9. Disrupting Regional Normalization with Israel The Abraham Accords and ongoing U.S.-led negotiations with Saudi Arabia on normalization with Israel further marginalized the Palestinian issue. Hamas’s attack can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to derail such efforts and re-center the Palestinian question in regional politics.
10. Exploiting Internal Israeli Weakness and Division Hamas also capitalized on internal divisions within Israel, particularly the 2023 political crisis surrounding judicial reforms.
11. Challenging Israeli Military Supremacy The scale and surprise of the attack served to challenge the perception of Israel’s military invincibility. For many Palestinians, this was a symbolic parallel to the October War of 1973, in which Egypt and Syria caught Israel off guard and initially gained the upper hand.
Why Did Hamas Carry Out the Attack in Such an Inhumane and Brutal Manner?
The second, equally critical question concerns not just the fact of the October 7th attack but the extraordinarily brutal and inhumane manner in which it was executed. This question defies simple moral explanation. It challenges our understanding of how individuals and groups can lose their sense of humanity — a phenomenon not unique to this conflict, as seen historically in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Myanmar. While a definitive answer is elusive, several interrelated psychological, ideological, and sociopolitical factors may help explain this level of violence.
1. Dehumanization of the Enemy A key psychological mechanism behind such atrocities is the dehumanization of the other. In the eyes of many Hamas fighters, Israelis were no longer perceived as individual human beings but rather as an undifferentiated enemy category. This dehumanization, often cultivated from a young age under siege conditions and deprivation, removed moral barriers to violence — even against children and women. Dehumanization was compounded by hatred, an emotional catalyst that fuels extreme cruelty once moral inhibitions have been stripped away.
2. Vengeance and the Cycle of Violence Vengeance is another powerful driver of brutal behaviour. After decades of violent confrontations with Israeli forces — marked by the deaths, injuries, and imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians — a deep sense of historical grievance and desire for revenge took root. The attack presented an opportunity to avenge years of suffering, humiliation, and perceived injustice, resulting in acts of extreme cruelty.
3. Martyrdom and Indoctrination Many Hamas members were shaped by an ideological environment that subordinates moral and humanistic values to religious and nationalistic goals. It glorifies martyrdom (shahada) and jihad. In this context, jihad is framed as a divine commandment to fight against oppressors, often portrayed as infidel Jews or colonialist occupiers. When hope for a better future is absent, the promise of becoming a shahid becomes a powerful motivator. In such a framework, sacrificing for God and the nation overrides all ethical considerations. Violence becomes not only permissible but expected.
4. Moral Disengagement and Victim Entitlement Two additional psychological mechanisms likely played a role: moral disengagement and moral entitlement because of a dominant sense of collective victimhood. The former allows individuals to disconnect from the moral implications of their actions, while the latter provides a perceived justification for brutality based on a sense of historical victimhood. Having grown up in a context of suffering and marginalization, many attackers may have felt morally entitled to retaliate — regardless of the cost in innocent lives.
5. Despair and the Siege of Gaza While never a justification, the sociopolitical context of prolonged siege and hopelessness in Gaza is essential to understanding the psychological climate that enabled such violence. Despite Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, it maintained strict control over the borders, effectively turning the territory into an open-air prison. Years of economic strangulation, lack of freedom, and humanitarian crisis produced a pressure cooker environment. The attack can be seen as a violent eruption of collective despair.
6. Situational Triggers During the Attack The nature of the attack itself may have further escalated brutality. In locations where there was little to no Israeli defense, the ease of access and the absence of resistance may have lowered inhibitions and unleashed unrestrained violence.
What Explains the Scale and Brutality of the Israeli Response?
The same fundamental question raised about the brutality of the October 7th Hamas attack must also be directed at Israel: How can Israeli soldiers — pilots, ground troops, and political leaders — justify the killing, wounding and starvation of civilians, including children, women, and the elderly? How can the near-total destruction of the Gaza Strip and the repeated displacement of its population into just 14% of its territory be morally defended?
While difficult to confront, this question is essential. The explanations, although complex, draw from similar psychological, ideological, and structural mechanisms as those examined in the case of Hamas. Below are several interrelated factors that may help to explain Israeli behaviours during the war.
1. Dehumanization and Vengeance Just as Hamas fighters dehumanized Israeli civilians, many Israeli Jews — including combatants — have come to see all Gazans as indistinguishable from Hamas. In public discourse, Palestinians have frequently been depicted as Nazis or genocidal terrorists, erasing the distinction between combatants and civilians. This is particularly evident in aerial warfare, where Israeli pilots drop bombs from high altitudes without seeing the human consequences on the ground. The physical distance reinforces psychological detachment.
2. Collective Trauma and the Drive for Retribution The horrific nature of the October 7 attack and the constant repetition of its graphic details across Israeli media produced an overwhelming national desire for vengeance and eclipsed any inclination toward empathy, compassion, or restraint. Only a small minority in Israeli society have attempted to transcend the immediate pain and reflect critically on the broader political and historical context.
3. Perception of Existential Threat Many Israelis interpreted the October 7 attack as an existential threat — comparable, in emotional impact, to the Holocaust. Even some individuals who previously supported peace and coexistence turned sharply rightward in response. This collective trauma together with dehumanization reinforced a nationalistic and survivalist mentality that fostered moral disengagement, moral entitlement, and moral silencing.
• Moral disengagement allows individuals to temporarily suspend moral norms when their group is under perceived threat.
• Moral entitlement claims that, as historical victims, Jews are justified in doing whatever is necessary to protect themselves.
• Moral silencing holds that others have no standing to criticize Jews because of their inaction during the Holocaust.
4. Deterrence and the Desire to “Teach a Lesson” The Israeli response has been framed by many as necessary for deterrence. According to this logic, the overwhelming force and scale of destruction are intended to prevent future attacks by instilling fear.
5. International Silence and Strategic Impunity Israel’s belief that it enjoys international support or impunity likely contributed to the continuation and intensity of its military campaign. The United States and other Western powers initially issued only muted criticisms, despite mounting evidence of mass civilian casualties and the destruction of essential infrastructure. Moreover, Israel frequently invokes accusations of antisemitism to deflect external criticism in an attempt to discourage international accountability.
6. Military Obedience and Denial of Atrocities Despite the morally troubling nature of many actions in Gaza, the vast majority of Israeli soldiers—both conscripts and reservists—have continued to obey orders. In some cases, reports suggest that soldiers have exceeded their orders in the harm they inflicted on Palestinian civilians.
7. Ethos of Conflict and Indoctrination From a young age, Israeli Jews are socialized within a conflict-driven national ethos. Palestinians are often portrayed in education, media, and political rhetoric as existential threats or inherently violent. After October 7, this narrative intensified. Public discourse focused almost exclusively on the atrocities committed by Hamas, while the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza was either minimized or ignored. Governmental and military leaders have engaged in inflammatory rhetoric that borders on incitement. For example, Netanyahu cited the biblical command to “wipe out the memory of Amalek,” and promised “revenge that the devil has not yet created.” Minister of Education Yoav Kisch declared: “They are animals; they have no right to exist.”
8. Religious Ideology and Divine Justification Among soldiers from religious Zionist communities, the war has been framed as divinely sanctioned. Some view the violence as part of a biblical mission to reclaim land promised by God, transforming the war into a sacred struggle. In this context, territorial conquest and the destruction of the enemy are seen not only as justified, but as spiritually necessary.
The Causes of Netanyahu’s Behavior
1. A number of political, psychological, strategic, and personal factors appear to have shaped Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on continuing the war in Gaza, framed as a campaign for “total victory” over Hamas. His rhetoric — including statements such as “Hamas must be exterminated” — signals not only a military strategy but a deeply entrenched political agenda. Netanyahu is a hegemonic figure who decides policies and lines of action largely by himself. Nonetheless, his policies in Gaza are influenced by the positions of U.S. presidents — previously Joe Biden and now Donald Trump — whom he must appease to secure their support.
Below are the principal causes that may explain Netanyahu’s behaviour and decision-making during the ongoing conflict.
1. Shifting Focus from the Gaza Catastrophe and Hostage Crisis The continuation of the war has allowed Netanyahu to redirect the national conversation away from the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the displacement of millions and the growing starvation have been largely absent from Israeli formal public discourse. The crimes in the West Bank also have been ignored by most channels of communication. Finally, the fate of approximately 50 Israeli hostages still held in Gaza has been selectively presented in political and formal media narratives. This selective framing has strategically removed both moral accountability and public pressure from the center of national debate.
2. Appeasing Far-Right Coalition Partners Netanyahu’s political survival depends heavily on the support of far right ministers such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who have openly obstructed negotiations aimed at reaching a ceasefire and securing a hostage release. Their presence in key ministerial positions has emboldened extreme policies by Netanyahu, making the continuation of the war a necessity for coalition cohesion.
3. Framing the War as an Expression of Jewish Victimhood The dominant narrative within Israel, as shaped by Netanyahu, other political leaders, and the media, emphasizes Israeli suffering while often omitting the scale of Palestinian loss. This framing resonates deeply with collective Jewish historical trauma, particularly the legacy of the Holocaust and persecution in the diaspora. It reinforces a self-image of victimhood that generates emotional solidarity and mobilizes public support for aggressive military action.
4. Deflecting Blame for October 7th Failures Netanyahu has refused to accept personal or institutional responsibility for the failures that allowed the October 7 Hamas attack to occur. By prolonging the war, he has effectively deferred the possibility of public inquiry or accountability, avoiding the political consequences that a state commission of inquiry would likely trigger.
5. Reasserting Political Authority Amid Domestic Instability Before the war, Netanyahu was politically vulnerable, particularly on the issue of military conscription for the ultra-Orthodox community. His government narrowly survived a confidence vote after conceding to ultra Orthodox demands. The war provided a platform for Netanyahu to reassert leadership, project strength, and temporarily neutralize internal opposition.
6. Advancing an Authoritarian Agenda and Centralizing Executive Power The wartime environment has provided cover for the government to advance its controversial agenda of judicial overhaul and regime transformation. Efforts have included attempts to curb the independence of the judiciary, weaken civil society, restrict press freedom, and politicize the civil service. These moves have significantly undermined democratic institutions. Netanyahu has consolidated near-absolute power by removing dissenting ministers, dominating the Knesset, exerting control over the police and military, and sidelining the attorney general, despite legal resistance. Civil service appointments have increasingly been based on political loyalty rather than competence, shifting Israel toward authoritarian governance.
7. Electioneering and Political Branding With the Knesset in recess between July 27 and October 19, 2025, Netanyahu has effectively entered campaign mode. Presenting himself as the “Master of Security,” he has used national security as a core theme to attempt to rebuild public trust, divert attention from economic instability, and consolidate political messaging in preparation for potential elections.
8. Reframing Regional Strategy Netanyahu has framed the Gaza war within a broader vision of reshaping the regional order. The conflict has coincided with Israeli military interventions in Syria and southern Lebanon aimed at eliminating Hezbollah’s influence and asserting Israeli territorial control. Israel also demonstrated dominance in the war with Iran. These moves align with a strategy of asserting regional hegemony under the guise of national security.
9. Postponing Criminal Proceedings Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial — on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust — has been repeatedly delayed using various “crises” as pretexts. The war has provided a new rationale for suspending legal proceedings, continuing Netanyahu’s pattern of exploiting his position to deflect judicial accountability.
10. Suppressing Emerging Scandals The war has also overshadowed domestic scandals, notably “Qatargate,” in which Netanyahu’s office is alleged to have had improper financial and political dealings with a state that provides funding to Hamas. An internal investigation by Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency is underway but has been overshadowed by the ongoing conflict.
11. Restoring Deterrence Post–October 7th Netanyahu has sought to restore Israel’s image of deterrence, badly damaged by the success of the October 7 attacks. His vision includes the complete elimination of Hamas and potentially the reoccupation of Gaza, a move that would place Israel in direct control of a devastated and politically volatile territory.
In sum, Netanyahu’s decision to prolong the war reflects a confluence of motivations: ideological ambition, political expediency, personal legal survival, and deeply rooted narratives of identity and victimhood. While the military campaign was initially justified as a war against terrorism, its underlying causes are far more complex. Understanding these motivations is essential for any meaningful analysis of the conflict’s continuation and for the prospects of any eventual resolution.