תקציר
Despite countless studies on victory in armed conflict, scholars disagree about the exact meaning of this term. This article, using primary sources in Hebrew and Arabic, aims to define victory and to discern between types of successful outcomes in war. We analyze three case studies of military collision between Israel and Hamas through a model featuring four levels: tactical, operational, strategic, and systemic. The study shows that in all three clashes (2008, 2012, 2014), the outcomes are difficult to evaluate because the boundaries between the definitions are foggy. It also concludes that neither side has achieved a strategic victory that breaks the status quo that has held since June 2007—though Hamas's leaders have claimed strategic victory due to the group's survival. Israel, without advanced planning, has relied on tactical wins for its strategic policy.
| שפה מקורית | אנגלית |
|---|---|
| עמודים (מ-עד) | 24-36 |
| מספר עמודים | 13 |
| כתב עת | Middle East Policy |
| כרך | 30 |
| מספר גיליון | 3 |
| מזהי עצם דיגיטלי (DOIs) | |
| סטטוס פרסום | פורסם - 1 ספט׳ 2023 |
טביעת אצבע
להלן מוצגים תחומי המחקר של הפרסום 'The Winner Does Not Take All: Lessons from the Israel-Hamas Conflict'. יחד הם יוצרים טביעת אצבע ייחודית.פורמט ציטוט ביבליוגרפי
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver