Modern conflicts are fought not only on battlefields, but in the minds and hearts of international audiences. In an era of instantaneous media, images travel faster than facts, and narratives can shape policy as decisively as military action. Understanding the interplay between emotion, strategy, and media is therefore essential for moral clarity.
I. Emotional vs Cognitive Empathy
Psychology distinguishes two forms of empathy:
- Emotional (affective) empathy: a visceral reaction to another’s suffering that drives humanitarian concern.
- Cognitive (perspective-taking) empathy: the ability to understand how someone thinks and predict how they will react; it enables strategic analysis.
Both capacities are morally neutral — their ethical weight depends on how they are applied. In conflict, emotional empathy can mobilise humanitarian action. Cognitive empathy can deepen understanding — or, when weaponised, enable manipulation.
This distinction helps explain a critical asymmetry in the Israel–Hamas conflict. Hamas has demonstrated a sophisticated use of cognitive empathy — it understands Western moral psychology, media cycles, and the power of civilian imagery. Its operational choices reflect an awareness that visible civilian suffering generates international pressure on Israel.
Western societies, by contrast, often respond primarily with emotional empathy — the immediate and deeply human reaction to images of civilian harm. This is neither wrong nor weak. It is humane. But when emotional empathy operates without cognitive context, it can be strategically exploited.
The result is a predictable dynamic — Hamas uses cognitive empathy to shape battlefield decisions around anticipated Western emotional responses. A full moral assessment therefore requires symmetry — applying empathy not only to Palestinian civilians, but also to Israeli civilians, and to the strategic calculations of the actors themselves.
II. Structural Context: Gaza’s Constraints
Gaza is one of the more densely populated territories in the world, with more than 5,000 people per square kilometre. The territory has been under a blockade for 17 years, and the broader Israeli–Palestinian conflict imposes severe constraints on mobility, resources, and infrastructure.
These realities shape civilian experience:
- Limited options for shelter and evacuation
- Constrained urban development, forcing infrastructure into proximity
- A history of repeated military operations and trauma
Such structural conditions help explain the vulnerability of civilians in wartime. They do not, however, justify embedding military assets among civilians, nor absolve any actor of legal or moral obligations.
Context is essential — but so is history and responsibility. The blockade did not arise in isolation. Years of rocket fire, cross-border attacks, and explicit threats of annihilation prompted defensive measures. Despite development constraints, Hamas constructed more than 500 miles of multi-level military tunnels — yet civilians were not permitted to shelter in them.
Repeated military operations did not occur randomly. They followed cycles of escalation initiated by Hamas, the democratically elected leadership of Gaza. In 2005, Israel withdrew unilaterally, dismantling settlements and even exhuming the remains of Israelis to ensure no Jewish presence remained. Gaza was presented with an opportunity for autonomous development. The strategic path chosen since has repeatedly exposed its own civilian population to danger.
Structural explanation does not negate agency.
III. Hamas and Civilian Embedding
Extensive documentation shows that Hamas systematically embeds military infrastructure within civilian areas — storing weapons in residential buildings, operating tunnels beneath homes, and situating command centres within densely populated neighbourhoods.¹ ²
This practice of human shielding increases the likelihood of civilian casualties in any military engagement. It is explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law (Additional Protocol I, Article 51(7)).³
Hamas officials have openly acknowledged that civilian casualties serve political and media objectives.² Civilian harm is not merely foreseen — it is strategically leveraged.
The moral distinction here is critical. Urban density may constrain options. It does not compel the deliberate integration of military assets into civilian life.
IV. Israeli Precautions and Proportionality
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) operate under legal and ethical frameworks designed to minimise civilian harm, often at tactical cost. Measures include:
- Advance warnings via leaflets, SMS, broadcasts, and social media
- “Roof knocking” procedures prior to strikes
- Evacuation instructions covering entire neighbourhoods
- Target selection processes aimed at degrading militant capability while reducing civilian risk⁴,⁵
The principle of proportionality requires that civilian harm not be excessive relative to anticipated military advantage.⁶,⁷ Human shielding complicates these assessments, as predictable civilian harm increases when combatants embed within civilian populations.
The asymmetry is stark: one actor systematically increases civilian exposure to danger; the other adopts precautionary measures that may reduce operational effectiveness in order to mitigate harm.
This does not eliminate tragedy. It clarifies responsibility.
V. Media, Empathy, and Narrative Asymmetry
In democratic societies, public opinion matters. Western audiences are highly responsive to images of civilian suffering. Emotional empathy is immediate, powerful, and politically consequential.
Hamas understands this. By embedding military assets among civilians and by shaping narratives around casualty imagery, it activates predictable emotional responses in Western publics. Emotional empathy generates outrage; outrage generates diplomatic pressure; pressure constrains Israeli operational freedom.
Cognitive empathy (understanding this strategic design) is often secondary in public discourse.
The imbalance is not due to malice, but to human nature. Civilian suffering is visible — military embedding strategies are less so. Emotional empathy responds to what is seen. Cognitive empathy requires deliberate effort.
A complete moral analysis requires both:
- Emotional empathy for all civilians affected — Palestinian and Israeli alike
- Cognitive empathy for the strategic calculations shaping events
Such integrated empathy reveals that civilian suffering, while tragic, is often structurally foreseeable — not random.
VI. Moral and Strategic Clarity
Recognising asymmetry is not cynicism. It is a prerequisite for responsible judgment.
- Civilian casualties in Gaza are devastating and must be minimised
- Israel remains bound by international law, and its precautionary measures are substantial
- Hamas’s deliberate embedding of military assets among civilians violates legal norms and heightens civilian risk
- Western emotional responses, if detached from context, risk amplifying blame while obscuring causation
Compassion without context can be manipulated. Context without compassion becomes cold abstraction. Responsible analysis requires both.
VII. Conclusion
Empathy is a human strength. Applied in isolation, it can mislead. Applied with context, it clarifies.
In Gaza:
- Hamas leverages cognitive empathy to anticipate and influence Western moral reactions
- Israel operates under legal and ethical obligations that shape its conduct, even at operational cost
- Civilians on both sides endure profound suffering
The path forward demands compassion informed by context, analysis guided by law, and recognition that asymmetric conflicts combine moral urgency with strategic calculation.
Only by pairing emotional empathy with cognitive clarity can societies respond humanely, preserve legal norms, and reduce the exploitation of tragedy for tactical gain.
References
- Henry Jackson Society. Hamas’s Human Shield Strategy in Gaza. 2023.
- Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Hamas Officials Admit Its Strategy Is to Use Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields. 2023.
- Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, Article 51(7).
- IDF. How the IDF Minimizes Harm to Civilians in Gaza. 2025.
- Lieber Institute, West Point. IDF Hamas Duty to Warn. 2025.
- Thinc Israel. Proportionality and the Armed Conflict Between Israel and Hamas. 2025.
- UKLFI. Guide to Proportionality in Warfare. 2025.
