Many ask what the long-term consequences of the fighting in the Gaza Strip are for the Middle East and the world. Let’s take a wider scope to try to answer this question. After World War II, it became clear that democracies had the upper hand for many reasons, including the moral values that characterized them, the technologies, the sciences, and the democratic governance system. Let it be clear that those who live in a democratic regime tend to ignore the shortcomings of the democratic system. Others living in totalitarian regimes or even in meritocratic regimes, such as Singapore, see the shortcomings of democracies and are ready to fight them to prove the superiority of their methods.

Strategists in non-democratic regimes tirelessly searched for a combat doctrine that would provide an adequate response to the superiority of the democratic state. It seems that we are in another chapter in that ongoing cultural confrontation. They studied the history of the wars fought in many places over thousands of years and found a solution that we currently see in the battle in Gaza. In this respect, Gaza is the testing ground of a new combat doctrine against democratic nations. Some call the doctrine that Hamas is trying “asymmetric warfare.” After all, every reasonable person asks: How does Hamas start a war knowing that it will be defeated on the battlefield and that its population will pay a heavy price? In conventional warfare doctrine, no army starts a war when it knows it will be defeated. What do they want to achieve in a war in which thousands will die, and their military power will be reduced beyond recognition in the end? All those who claim that their whole purpose is to show destruction so 
that the world will feel sorry for them are underestimating the intelligence of the thinking behind it.

Read More