One of the most basic insights in behavioral psychology is that people are wired to respond to immediate rewards even if those carry long-term consequences. Whether it’s eating another slice of cake, smoking a harmful cigarette, or running a red light, we tend to act when the benefit is now and the price is later. If the reward feels good enough and the threat seems distant enough, we take the risk.
This is not just human nature. It’s a weapon; one that Hamas has used masterfully in its psychological war against Israel and the West over the past 18 months.
With the help of Iranian and Qatari backers, Hamas has turned hostage diplomacy into a psychological trap. The emotional appeal of bringing hostages home – a deeply human desire – has become the bait. The cost? A stronger, bolder, more dangerous Hamas, just as ideologically committed to Israel’s destruction as ever.
And the trap is working.
In Israel, fatigue from the ongoing war has begun to show.
Reservists still show up, but morale is fraying as the burden falls unevenly across society. Public discourse is dominated by the plight of the hostages. Families appear on TV daily. Emotional appeals grip the nation. Understandably, the public pressure to “do something” grows – and Hamas knows this. That’s why, every few weeks, another hostage video surfaces, precisely timed to stoke hope, pain, and division.
The price of a deal with Hamas
Every potential deal with Hamas carries a price. And the terror organization ensures that the price is steep. Within Israel, a moral rift is deepening. For some, particularly hostage families, nothing matters more than bringing loved ones home. For others, the memory of October 7 and the desire to ensure it never happens again means defeating Hamas, even at terrible cost.
This is the heart of our moral dilemma: Two values – both legitimate – that feel increasingly irreconcilable.
Hamas is exploiting this divide with precision. One day, it offers a temporary hudna (“ceasefire”). The next, it releases a hostage video. All the while, it plays the victim: children under rubble, hospitals without power, shelters destroyed. The images are tragic – but they also serve a purpose. The responsibility, they suggest, lies not with Hamas, but with Israel.
Incredibly, many Israelis, who despise Hamas and all it stands for, fall into this psychological trap. Instead of demanding that Hamas release the hostages unconditionally, as international law requires, public anger often turns inward, toward the Israeli government. It is a striking success of Hamas’s psychologically asymmetric strategy.
The same is true in the West. There, the dominant narrative is one of Israeli oppression and “genocide” in Gaza. This narrative is a result of years of emotional manipulation and moral confusion.
Headlines show starving children and suffering patients, rarely acknowledging Hamas’s role in initiating the conflict or continuing to hold innocent Israelis captive. The moral burden shifts to Israel, while the terrorists evade accountability.
What does this all mean? First, we must take a more sober view of the reality we’re in. The moral imperative to rescue living hostages is real – but so is the government’s duty to protect its citizens from future atrocities.
These are not easy choices. But they are not mutually exclusive either. We must stop demonizing decisions we disagree with and start appreciating the weight of the dilemma.
Second, we must recognize that Hamas is watching us, learning about us, and playing us.
Militarily, we may be stronger. But on the psychological battlefield, Hamas currently holds the emotional upper hand. That’s how it continues to manipulate public opinion, both in Israel and in the West.
Our protests, our discourse, and our divisions have become tools in the hands of our enemy. Israelis must consider not just what they are demanding, but how those demands are expressed.
In the West, those who value freedom, justice, and moral clarity must understand that the same tactics Hamas uses against Israel can – and will – be used against them too.
The threat is not only to Israel’s resolve. It is to the moral fabric of democratic societies that fall for the easy narratives of victimhood.
Psychological warfare is still warfare. And if we want to win – not just the battles but also the war – we must start by understanding the battlefield we’re actually on.
The writer, who holds a PhD., is a clinical psychologist and a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, specializing in political psychology.