赢家不通吃:以色列-哈马斯冲突的教训

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES Middle East Policy Pub Date : 2023-08-06 DOI:10.1111/mepo.12703
G. Hitman, Alona Itskovich
{"title":"赢家不通吃:以色列-哈马斯冲突的教训","authors":"G. Hitman, Alona Itskovich","doi":"10.1111/mepo.12703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46060,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Winner Does Not Take All: Lessons from the Israel‐Hamas Conflict\",\"authors\":\"G. Hitman, Alona Itskovich\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/mepo.12703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Middle East Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Middle East Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12703\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12703","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管有无数关于武装冲突胜利的研究,但学者们对这个术语的确切含义意见不一。这篇文章使用希伯来语和阿拉伯语的主要来源,旨在定义胜利,并区分战争中成功结果的类型。我们通过一个具有四个层面的模型分析了以色列和哈马斯之间军事冲突的三个案例研究:战术、行动、战略和系统。研究表明,在所有三次冲突(2008年、2012年、2014年)中,结果都很难评估,因为定义之间的界限模糊不清。报告还得出结论,双方都没有取得战略胜利,打破自2007年6月以来的现状——尽管哈马斯领导人声称,由于该组织的生存,双方都取得了战略胜利。以色列在没有先进计划的情况下,其战略政策一直依靠战术胜利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Winner Does Not Take All: Lessons from the Israel‐Hamas Conflict
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Middle East Policy
Middle East Policy Multiple-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The most frequently cited journal on the Middle East region in the field of international affairs, Middle East Policy has been engaging thoughtful minds for more than 25 years. Since its inception in 1982, the journal has been recognized as a valuable addition to the Washington-based policy discussion. Middle East Policy provides an influential forum for a wide range of views on U.S. interests in the region and the value of the policies that are supposed to promote them.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A Sultanate that Endures: Oman in the World from Qaboos bin Sa'id to Haitham bin Tariq By Joseph A. Kéchichian. Liverpool University Press, 2023. 420 pages. $48, paper. Conflict in the Red Sea: The Role of Great-Power Actors Degrade and Destroy: The Inside Story of the War Against the Islamic State, from Barack Obama to Donald Trump By Michael R. Gordon. Picador, 2023. 512 pages. $21, paper. Turkey's Right-Wing Discourse of Resentment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1