Gaza, Hybrid Warfare And Card Of Soft Target -By IfeanyiChukwu Afuba

Gaza reminds me of the Biafran story in two ways. As a toddler in Biafra, I was only partially blind to the horrors of war. The immunity arising from the bliss of underage, freedom of responsibility, began to wear off as succession of nights and days rolled by and intensity of the conflict increased. Consciousness of a happening calamity gradually came with the roar of fighter jets, the accompanying screams; columns of fleeing refugees; starvation, recurrent word of kwashiorkor at every turn. There were occasional sights of mumbling, staggering deserters called ‘artillery’, said to be suffering from shell shock. Returning to Enugu January 1970, we saw long lines of buildings pock – marked from shelling, destroyed and or abandoned military weapons. As tales of the frightening 30 month ordeal were told and retold by adults, it was easy for me to appreciate the ‘happy survival’ exclamation by wearied folks reuniting after about three years. And so, for some of us, the images of ruin, deaths and broken limbs coming out of Gaza are not just hard news. While the terrain, technology involved and intensity of bombardment differ, the experience of siege, desolation and suffering are common. The average victim of the trauma of war is wont to say, never again.

Like Gaza, Biafra also suffered the stranglehold of economic blockade. The forced sea, air and land isolation brought mass hunger just as is currently happening in Gaza. A lot has changed in the world since the days of Biafra. Human rights and warfare obligations have become internationally accepted charters. The concept of globalisation has not only gained currency but given filip by advancement in information technology. At the time of Nigeria’s civil war, it took weeks, sometimes months, for pictures from the war zones to get into the foreign media. Today, ghastly visuals of war are beamed to our homes right as they are happening. It’s no surprise then that footage of the harrowing conditions of Gazans have sparked worldwide outrage. There are strong concerns about proportionality of the force being employed by Israel in it’s military campaign. Some observers, including traditional friends of Israel have criticised the extent of deaths and destruction in Gaza as an overkill. Many too consider Israel’s prevention of humanitarian aid into Gaza as inhumane. Not even the later relaxation which saw the introduction of private aid organisations taking over the distribution of food and other essential supplies has been accepted. The new arrangement which sidelines the controversial United Nations World Refugees Agency, is denounced in some circles as “weaponising aid.” In the event, there has been a steep rise in anti Israel activism around the globe.

The combination of these diplomatic concerns, anti – Israel street protests in the West and media indictment of the war’s conduct has tended to condemn Israel as the villain in the conflict. Without doubt, the casualty figures, even permitting Hamas’s predilection of inflation, is disturbingly high. And same can be said for the numbers of civilian institutions and social infrastructure that have come under collateral damage. Concentration of strikes on military targets and combat zones is possible and Israel has an obligation to conform to these standards. And it’s possible and desirable to improve the aid distribution system for greater reach and minimal risk to Gaza civilian population. But this constitutes only a part of the crisis, indeed, roughly one third of the constitutive factors. And this presents the crux of the Gaza crisis, namely, the alienation of principal causes of the conflict by many concerned groups in framing the path to peace. These seemingly well intentioned interventions have focused on demand for a ceasefire in the Gaza war. But while a ceasefire is desirable, it is not in itself a solution to the conflict. Again, this approach sidesteps a cardinal point, the ideological nature of the conflict.

Let’s take a look at the typical, ‘progressive’ attitude to the war. BBC News, 20th May 2025, related the joint stance of two European countries and a western state. ‘The UK, France and Canada have warned Israel they will take “concrete actions” if it continues an “egregious” expansion of military operations in Gaza.’ The leaders of the three nations cited the “intolerable” level of suffering in Gaza” to justify the threat of sanctions against Israel. For it’s part, Spain hosted a summit of Arab and Islamic States on May 25 in rejection of Israel’s “inhumane” and “senseless” war in Gaza. Spain’s socialism – spouting government of Pedro Sanchez was joined in the high sounding conference by Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Slovenia and Brazil. The organisers seemed to forget extending an important invitation. Attendance by Cyril Ramaphosa’s South Africa would have shored up the _aluta_ ratings of the pro Palestine front. However, for all their indignation, the moral high ground being claimed by Israel’s detractors is misplaced, if not hypocritical. It turns out that the emerging anti Israel coalition are unconscious or willing victims of manipulation. These state actors and much of the kaffiyeh – flaunting protesters in the West are falling for the antics of hybrid warfare deployed against the Jewish State.

Israel is poised to defeat Hamas militarily. It was always favoured to do so. It’s ability to simultaneously take on the triple H of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, in addition to Iran, validates it’s regional superpower standing. In the present time, Hamas’s strength and presence in Gaza is rapidly diminishing, and for a long time now, she has not been able to fire a rocket towards Israel. Hamas along with the racial and religious axis backing it, saw this looming vanquishing and adopted a counter of hybrid warfare. The expression refers to the use of non – violent
methods like psychological operations, economic pressure, and political interference to advance war objectives, with emphasis on
exploiting an adversary’s weaknesses. Artificial Intelligence search further describes the characteristics.
“Hybrid warfare combines conventional military tactics with unconventional methods like cyber warfare, information manipulation, and economic disruption. It is a form of conflict that uses a variety of tools to achieve strategic objectives, often targeting an adversary’s political, economic, social, and psychological vulnerabilities.” From the above, we can see how Hamas was not only able to slow down Israel’s war machine but also to turn international tide against Israel in a war in which Hamas is not merely the aggressor. Both in it’s prosecution of war and as an article of faith, Hamas proudly continues to profess terrorism. She has not stopped there. A month after the massacre of Israeli civilians, The Economic Times, November 2, 2023, reported Hamas’s restating of readiness to repeat the October 7, 2023 cold blooded killing of elderly Jews, women and children.

But unleashing psychological and information manipulations, Hamas has partially succeeded in shifting world attention from it’s terrorist activities to Israel’s so – called killing fields in Gaza. The United Nations relief and works agency UNRWA compromised it’s standards by close association with Hamas members. But through Hamas’s inciting rhetoric, Israel is to be held responsible for UNRWA’s subsequent redundancy. Hamas locates rocket launchers in densely populated neighbourhoods, firing indiscriminately into Israeli territory but Israel takes heavy knocks for civilian casualties in it’s operations. Hamas operates command centres, logistics and supply units not just from densely populated areas but by integration in hospital premises and surrounding. In the latest expose, the IDF on June 8, 2925 found Hamas leader, Mohammed Sinwar’s body in a tunnel underneath an European Union funded hospital in Khan Younis, Gaza. Hamas seizes and uses humanitarian aid to manipulate loyalty to the organisation but Israel takes the blame for starvation in Gaza. What is at play is a disingenuous criminalisation of Israel’s right to deal with threats to the State and her people. This gaslighting, distortion and blackmail gains semblance of authenticity by the power of multiplier effect. Differences with Hamas notwithstanding, the Arab League and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation are majorly in support of Hamas when it comes to Israel. And so by their sheer numbers, ideological affinity, economic and political leverages, the anti Israel bloc is rephrasing the Gaza war from Hamas’s invasion and hostage crimes to Israel’s sacking of Gaza.

The obvious danger of revisions which reset agenda is that they may push the germane issues out of contention. It happened to the Biafran struggle. World powers preferred a bigger, dependent, oil – abounding Nigeria to the prospect of a black power in Biafra. And the Nigerian conflict changed from the contradictions of a coup to regional “rebellion” against the federation. This redefinition, emphasised in dismissive references to “the rebels” gained acceptance notwithstanding it’s puncture by the East’s endorsement of pre war Aburi confederation accord. In the Gaza scenario, one institution that has lent itself to massive self – devaluation is mainstream, western media. The traditional western media is a pitiful sight as it bends over, struggling not to offend the pro – Hamas mobs in it’s coverage of the Gaza war. The extent of media capitulation to the Gaza blackmail is evident in the current blackout on the inhuman condition of Israeli hostages. How come it’s no longer news worthy to run stories, features and documentaries on the hostages’ tunnel imprisonment for twenty – two months – and still counting. What torture can be more outrageous? From the BBC to CNN, it’s a scandal of silence on the laundering of terrorism. Let the same news outlets efficient at lamenting the home – tents of displaced Gazans and their handout meals tell us what it’s like to live in a tunnel. What do the hostages eat? Do they bathe? Do they see the sunlight? How do they achieve blood circulation cramped up in narrow, cave – like confinement? The same international media that bombards audiences with clamour for ceasefire in Gaza will never in the same measure amplify demands for unconditional release of the hostages! What was the response of the media to the cowardly attack on Run for their Lives group peacefully demonstrating for release of the hostages on June 3, 2025 in Boulder, Colorado? Since it was not a pro – Palestine incident, the cowed and cowering western media forgot to follow up with their views after the news. Expert analysis always indictful of Israel! Why didn’t we have those analyses after the Boulder rage of intolerance? Pathetic!

Without a shred of doubt, the West’s political and media pandering to the middle east’s anti Israel axis, is not about misunderstanding the currents. It’s halfway about lack of courage and halfway about political correctness. This conflicted disposition leads to subscription to the soft target route. The West and much of the enlightened world find Israel a softer target to sanction than Hamas. Israel is not just an established state, it’s a democracy with accountable leadership and civilised values. Indictment of the government of Israel on the international arena is guaranteed to provoke internal backlash in the country any day. Israel’s legal system and democratic culture do not only impose restraints on the government but can also alter the existing social order in certain circumstances. Not so when it comes to the creepy entity known as Hamas. A law unto itself, the violence – glorifying organisation is as shadowy as it’s slippery on universal values. With hardly any fixed assets, encumbering it’s structures is problematic. It’s proclivity for guerilla warfare further makes consideration of direct confrontation a last option. Neither Russia nor America can downplay their Afghanistan experience. And so, it’s a game of realpolitik when leading nations of the world leave Hamas alone and badger Israel over the Gaza conflict. It was a similar case of taking the line of least resistance when Donald Trump bullied Vlodymer Zelensky over the Ukraine – Russian war at the White House, February 28, 2025. Mr Trump would not admit he didn’t have the stomach to stand up to Vladimir Putin. Zelensky did not start the war, wants peace with Russia, yet he’s the one who is upbraided. But that’s exactly the illogic of soft target. Today, Israel is fighting on the front of a threatened free world. Incredibly, the influential actors on the world stage playing the soft target card in Gaza are indirectly saying that they trust Hamas’s words. Do they also trust ISIL?

IfeanyiChukwu Afuba