2022-25: Israel strikes against Hamas impact of air power use on public opinion. (AI Study Guide)
Comments to: zzzz707@live.com.au LINK: Free Substack Magazine: JB-GPT's AI-TUTOR—MILITARY HISTORY
To use this post to answer follow up questions, copy everything below the line into the AI of your choice, type in your question where indicated and run the AI.
__________________________________________________________________
Question: [TYPE YOUR QUESTION HERE]
When answering provide 10 to 20 key points, using official military histories and web sources as found in the following list: https://www.ai-tutor-military-history.com/bibliography-jbgpt-ai Provide references to support each key point. British spelling, plain English.
2022-25: Israel strikes against Hamas impact of air power use on public opinion.
Title
Israeli Strikes Against Hamas 2022–25: Air Power and Public Opinion
Overview
From 2022 to 2025 Israeli air strikes against Hamas in Gaza have combined high-tempo precision attack with extensive destruction and civilian casualties. Inside Israel, polling in 2024 showed a plurality judging the response “about right” and a similar share thinking it had not gone far enough, with a smaller minority saying it went too far. (Pew Research Center) In contrast, Arab public opinion has been overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian, and Western opinion has shifted from initial sympathy for Israel toward growing criticism of the Gaza air campaign and concern over civilian harm. (arabindex.dohainstitute.org)
Glossary of terms
• Israeli Air Force (IAF): Israel’s air arm, historically central to national security and repeatedly employed for strategic and operational effect against Hamas and other non-state actors.
• Hamas: Islamist movement and armed organisation governing Gaza for much of this period, using dense urban terrain, tunnel networks and rocket fire against Israel while embedding military assets among civilians.
• Strategic communication: Coordinated messaging by political and military leaders to shape domestic, regional and international perceptions of air operations and their legitimacy.
• Civilian casualty sensitivity: The degree to which domestic and foreign publics react adversely to non-combatant deaths and visible destruction caused by air strikes.
• Precision strike: Use of guided munitions and ISR to hit discrete targets—such as Hamas leadership, command posts or rocket launchers—while seeking to limit collateral damage.
• Disproportionate force debate: Ongoing argument over whether Israeli air operations use excessive firepower relative to military objectives, with direct implications for public opinion and legitimacy.
• Arab public opinion: Views across the Arab world, where recent surveys show overwhelming solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and rejection of normalisation with Israel. (arabindex.dohainstitute.org)
• Western public opinion: Attitudes in the US and Europe, initially sympathetic after major Hamas attacks but increasingly divided or critical as images of destruction accumulate. (Gallup.com)
• Domestic Israeli opinion: Views within Israel, where many support robust air operations against Hamas yet differ over proportionality, duration, and strategic end-states. (Pew Research Center)
• Legitimacy of air power: The perceived moral and legal acceptability of air operations; heavily influenced by civilian harm, adherence to international humanitarian law and narrative framing.
Key points
• Air power as Israel’s primary coercive instrument against Hamas: Since 2022 Israel has relied on the IAF for rapid retaliation, leadership targeting and suppression of rocket fire. This aligns with long-standing Israeli doctrine favouring short, intense campaigns that exploit air power’s reach and precision. The visibility of air operations means they become the focal point for public judgement of the conflict, even when ground and naval elements play important supporting roles.
• Domestic Israeli support tempered by concern over effectiveness and costs: Many Israelis view strong air action as necessary to restore deterrence and punish Hamas, especially after mass-casualty attacks. At the same time, repeated Gaza campaigns, prolonged rocket fire and international backlash foster doubts about whether air power alone can deliver lasting security. Israeli opinion therefore tends to support robust strikes while questioning political strategy and the end-state they are meant to achieve.
• Palestinian perceptions shaped by devastation and endurance narratives: For Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli air campaigns bring large-scale destruction, displacement and casualties, reinforcing narratives of collective punishment. This fuels anger at Israel but also complex attitudes toward Hamas, seen both as a source of suffering and as a symbol of resistance. Air strikes therefore deepen hostility and trauma but do not necessarily translate into uniform rejection of Hamas, especially while no credible alternative authority emerges.
• Arab public opinion overwhelmingly hostile to the air campaign: Across the Arab world, repeated images of destroyed neighbourhoods and dead civilians dominate media coverage. This reinforces long-standing grievances about Israeli power and Western double standards. Governments pursuing security or economic ties with Israel face strong popular pressure, as boycotts, protests and social-media activism frame the air campaign as an assault on Palestinians rather than a fight against a specific armed group.
• Western opinion has evolved from sympathy to polarisation: In the immediate aftermath of major Hamas attacks, Western publics generally accept Israel’s right to use force. As civilian casualties rise and destruction mounts, however, segments of public opinion—especially younger and more progressive groups—shift toward calling for ceasefires, arms embargoes or legal accountability. This produces partisan divides in countries such as the United States and complicates long-term diplomatic support for Israeli operations.
• Civilian casualties are the central driver of negative perceptions: Regardless of region, public opinion responds most strongly to perceived civilian suffering: images of collapsed apartment blocks, hospitals struck, or mass displacement have far greater impact than footage of precision strikes on military targets. Even when the IAF employs precision munitions and warning procedures, the density of Gaza’s urban environment ensures that air campaigns generate widely broadcast scenes that opponents use to frame the war as indiscriminate.
• Information environment compresses the time between action and reaction: Social media and continuous news coverage mean that within minutes of an air strike, images and narratives are circulating globally. Israel and its supporters attempt to emphasise military necessity, Hamas’s use of human shields and precision targeting, while critics highlight destruction and civilian death. This compressed cycle leaves little time for careful battle-damage assessment before public narratives harden.
• Legal and normative critiques erode perceived legitimacy over time: Statements from international organisations, non-governmental groups and foreign officials increasingly question whether Israeli targeting and proportionality meet international humanitarian law standards. Such critiques feed into public opinion, often overshadowing technical discussions of targeting or precautions. As campaigns lengthen, the cumulative effect is to shift debate from Israel’s right of self-defence to the legality and morality of its chosen methods.
• Air power’s deterrent and reassurance functions are double-edged: For many Israelis, visible air action reassures that the state is responding forcefully and may deter future attacks. For external audiences, especially in Arab and wider Muslim societies, the same images reinforce perceptions of Israeli military dominance used against a vulnerable population. Thus the political benefits of air power at home can translate into strategic costs abroad, including damage to Israel’s reputation and the standing of its partners.
• Strategic effect on Hamas and the wider conflict remains ambiguous: Repeated air campaigns degrade Hamas’s infrastructure and personnel, but the movement adapts, rebuilds and often emerges with enhanced symbolic status as a resilient actor. Public opinion dynamics therefore interact with military outcomes: if Hamas survives and continues to claim resistance, external publics may see air campaigns as brutal but ineffective, while Israelis may grow more frustrated and polarised over the long-term value of air power as a primary tool.
Official Sources and Records
• Israel Defense Forces – Official Updates and Operational Briefings: https://www.idf.il
• Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Statements on the Israel–Hamas Conflict: https://mfa.gov.il
• United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – Occupied Palestinian Territory: https://www.ochaopt.org
• UN Human Rights Office – Statements on the Gaza Hostilities: https://www.ohchr.org
Further reading
• Olsen, JA (ed.) 2010, A History of Air Warfare, Potomac Books, Washington, DC.
• Olsen, JA (ed.) 2017, Airpower Applied: U.S., NATO, and Israeli Combat Experience, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis.
• Brun, I 2011, ‘Israeli Air Power’, in Olsen, JA (ed.), Global Air Power, Potomac Books, Washington, DC.
• Gray, CS 2012, Airpower for Strategic Effect, Air University Press, Maxwell AFB.
• Burke, R, Fowler, M & Matisek, J (eds) 2022, Military Strategy, Joint Operations, and Airpower: An Introduction, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
• Evidence on the detailed evolution of public opinion during the 2023–25 phase of the war lies beyond the uploaded sources.