Thanks for the links to the article on the Biblical Hebrew.
A careful reading of this shows that you have made a false deduction from the admittedly misleading statement
The Qal stem is appropriately called "simple," in the sense that the
root bears no consonantal affixes; it is simple semantically in that
notions of causation are absent.
In linguistics, a causative is a form that indicates that a subject causes someone or something else to do or be something, or causes a change in state of a non-volitional event. (Wikipedia)
Here is example 1a in the article on Hebrew, followed by a comment:
He (God) split (Qal) the sea.
[This] represents a situation with God as the agent and the sea as the
object of the splitting action.
The verb split used in this way (transitively) is an obvious causative verb.
The Hebrew article really seems to be saying:
(1) There is no clue in the Qal stem about whether the verb is causative or not [though the meaning of the verb itself tells us this]
(2) The Qal form emphasises the agent (doer / causer): God split the rocks (switching to a variant of example 1b), whereas the Piel form puts the emphasis on what the agent has wrought The rocks lay split asunder as a result of God's speaking, and the Niphal form emphasises solely the resulting change The rocks lay split asunder. Three different emphases in constructions describing the same event and aftermath - the event involving causation (ie being effected by an agent).