Explaining Hamas Attack of October 7

This paper explains Hamas attack on the kibbutz Kfar-Aza using William Dray’s “how is it possible” approach and develops the approach along with game theoretical thinking. Finally, it evaluates the attack in the context of global politics. According to Jerusalem Post, a female Israeli soldier repeatedly reported Hamas activities in Gaza adjacent to the kibbutz area. There were events like regular Palestinian farmers leaving their fields and newcomers replacing them as well as a significant Hamas leader overseeing military training of Hamas guerillas. However, superior Israeli military commanders took the soldier’s reports as imaginary. The soldier was even threatened by facing legal procedures if she continues to report these events. Thus, the explanation boils down to the following argument: in the absence of Israeli negligence the attack could _NOT_ have taken place. The explanation gets support from an Israeli confidence on and overestimation of Israeli intelligence system. The explanation implies critical results in the current global political configuration. The Discipline of international relations (IR) constitutes a science as long as it permits explanations of international events. Hamas attack on the kibbutz Kfar-Aza is an unusual and puzzling event. Every event has a cause; events do not happen out of the blue. They occur under certain conditions. Thus, Hamas’ attack on the kibbutz Kfar-Aza needs an explanation. Accordingly, this paper proposes an explanation of the attack by using William Dray’s concept of “how-possibly explanation.”1 The explanation adds to our understanding of deadly Hamas attack and makes the attack comprehensible. The article develops in three sections. The first section exposes types of explanations as discussed in the philosophy of science. The second section argues for one type of explanation of the Hamas attack on 7 October. The third section deals with the impact of the attack upon global strategic relations implying major international powers. The conclusion ends the discussion with possible future extensions of the main ideas of the article.