Israel doubles down after October 7: relentless, yet within expected bounds

Was Israel's harshness after October 7 predictable? The hunt for participants in the attack and the language of asymmetric deterrence dominate the analysis

Those familiar with Israel's security doctrine are not surprised. Since the October 7 massacre, Israel has carried out a campaign to identify and eliminate those involved, which some describe as relentless but within historical bounds. The logic: for every attack received, the response must be overwhelming to deter future attempts.

The recent identification of participants in the massacre and their subsequent neutralization — including those who desecrated Shani Louk's body — fits that strategy. It is argued that Israel's ability to carry out these operations, even months later, demonstrates an intelligence and execution apparatus that does not forgive. Yet questions arise: if the intelligence services are so precise, how did they fail to detect the planning of the October 7 attack? Some point out that the military response is not only tactical but also political: a display of determination.

---

The controversy over proportionality and propaganda

While some see a proportionate and necessary response, others speak of war propaganda. Accusations of using hospitals for military purposes — advance warnings, tunnels — are mentioned, along with the bombing response that draws international condemnation. The divide is deep: while some believe Israel acts like an "ant" crushed with a hundred times its force, others doubt the veracity of the military objectives and argue that the "Pallywood" narrative (alleged Palestinian staged scenes) is a smokescreen.

The debate reveals two camps: those who accept the harshness as realpolitik in an existential conflict, and those who see the operation as a public relations campaign to justify a disproportionate offensive. There is no consensus on whether Israeli intelligence failed before October 7 or whether the current deployment is compensation.

---

The limits of asymmetric deterrence

The history of the conflict shows that "asymmetric deterrence" — responding with vastly superior force so the enemy gives up — has been Israeli doctrine for decades. But October 7 broke that pattern: the attack was massive and coordinated, with infiltrators using excavators and paragliders. It is argued that this very security failure explains the intensity of the current response: to show that any attempt will be punished without mercy.

Still, skepticism persists. Some argue that "an eye for an eye" rhetoric does not solve the underlying conflict and that escalation only breeds more hatred. The question that remains: is relentlessness an effective strategy or a cycle of revenge? Meanwhile, accusations of propaganda — "Pallywood Productions" included — keep fueling mutual distrust.