That strategy is the controlling factor in current events. It dictates what the Israeli military does
You seem to ascribe a whole lot of agency to Hamas, whereas you depict Israel as simply reacting to what Hamas did on Oct 7th. One side is an agent of history, the other side is a passive actor, doomed to respond to provocation. Why? Why does history apparently start in October? Could we not say that the events of October were shaped by Israeli strategy, that the Israeli miltary strategy of occupation defines the historical scope within which Palestinian actors can respond? Indeed, given that Israel are the overwhelming force here both in terms of military / economic / whatever power you want to think about, doesn't it seem more plausible that they have the greater agency?
You seem to ascribe a whole lot of agency to Hamas, whereas you depict Israel as simply reacting to what Hamas did on Oct 7th. One side is an agent of history, the other side is a passive actor, doomed to respond to provocation. Why? Why does history apparently start in October? Could we not say that the events of October were shaped by Israeli strategy, that the Israeli miltary strategy of occupation defines the historical scope within which Palestinian actors can respond? Indeed, given that Israel are the overwhelming force here both in terms of military / economic / whatever power you want to think about, doesn't it seem more plausible that they have the greater agency?