‘Hamas Offered Hope’: Sky News’s Absurd Analysis of the October 7 Attacks
- Chaim Lax
- December 24, 2023
- 5:09 pm
In a mind-boggling blend of speculation and misconceptions, according to Sky News military analyst Sean Bell’s latest “analysis,” Hamas’ surprise attack was a calculated move meant to provide a catalyst for international intervention in the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to “perhaps kick-start progress towards an enduring two-state solution.”
However, to reach his conclusions, Bell would have to disregard Hamas’ ideology and modus operandi, the history of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and the intense anti-Israel hostility that permeates Palestinian society.
For Sean Bell, the failure of Israel and the Palestinians to reach a peaceful solution via diplomatic and political channels, coupled with a spiraling decline in the quality of life for Palestinians in Gaza, presented Hamas with an opportunity to provide an alternative way of moving toward an “enduring peace.”
In Bell’s words, “Hamas offered hope.”
This “hope” took the form of the October 7 attacks, which Hamas calculated would unleash an unprecedented Israeli response but would also provoke international (particularly US) intervention in the region, laying the groundwork for a “more sustainable long-term solution.”
Thus, according to Bell, the vast tunnel network built by Hamas with millions of dollars of aid money was so that the Palestinian terror organization could weather out Israel’s response while awaiting the international intervention that was destined to follow.
Related Reading: Media Legitimize Hamas As Peace Partner Despite October 7 Atrocities
In Bell’s eyes, Hamas is a rational actor providing an alternative to the fruitless path of political negotiations by engaging in barbarism and cruelty.
To make this case, Bell must ignore the fact that in the years following the signing of the Oslo Accords, Hamas engaged in a campaign of terrorism directed at Israeli civilians, the goal being to derail the ongoing peace process.
In addition, for Bell to make Hamas into some sort of advocate for a two-state solution, he also has to disregard statements made by Hamas leaders in the wake of October 7.
These statements include the remarks by Ghazi Hamad, which called for repeated October 7-like attacks until Israel is destroyed, and Osama Hamdan’s recent assertion that Hamas’ stance remains the refusal to recognize Israel’s legitimacy in any part of the land.
Following the presentation of his faulty analysis, Bell then seeks to corroborate his claims by noting that, despite the destruction wrought by Israel’s response to Hamas’ atrocities, the terror organization’s popularity has risen in both Gaza and the West Bank.
For Bell, the reason for this hike in support is that the attacks have shone a light on the fact that Israel “has no intention of pursuing a two-state solution.”
Aside from the fact that Bell bases this assertion on the remarks of one Israeli official (hardly evidence for what Bell deems to be “Israel’s pursuit of a one-state solution”), his explanation for this burgeoning support is not borne out by the facts.
In the same poll that documented the rise in Palestinian approval for Hamas, it was noted that only 34% of Palestinians support a two-state solution and that almost 70% of Palestinians support the use of armed resistance to achieve Palestinian goals.
Thus, is rising Palestinian support for Hamas post-October 7 due to its causing the world to pay attention to the region or is the support an affirmation of the terrorist organization’s audacious invasion of Israel and the blow that it dealt to the Jewish state’s security?
With his rationalization of Hamas’ invasion, it would appear as if Bell were almost legitimizing the terror group’s activities on October 7.
Perhaps that is why he felt it necessary to punctuate his piece with statements like “this in no way justifies Hamas’s brutal atrocities on October 7.”
However, despite his protestations, it is clear that Bell believes there was a calculated logic behind Hamas’ October 7 attack, with a long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as its ultimate goal.
Along with his characterization of the attack as possibly a “prudent strategy” and his questioning of whether the tunnels are “a very astute investment by Hamas on behalf of the Palestinian people,” it is clear that Sean Bell’s analysis is steeped in a simplistic and naïve understanding of Israel, Hamas, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Is this the type of analysis that Sky News finds worthy of publication?
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region.
Photo Credits:
- Yousef Masoud/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
- Yonatan Sindel via Flash90
Hamas Failed, Israelis Are More United After October 7
No comments:
Post a Comment