The Ongoing Conflict in Gaza: A Complex Battlefield
Hamas’s Stance on Ceasefire and Negotiations
Hamas has firmly stated that it will not agree to any negotiations without first discussing the end of the ongoing conflict and the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from Gaza. This declaration appears to subtly support the Israeli government’s inclination to continue military operations as the preferred option. This sentiment was echoed by Bezalel Smotrich, who urged Prime Minister Netanyahu to exploit Hamas’s response as an opportunity to “eradicate the organization, take control of all of Gaza, and implement the Trump plan.” However, this assertion has not convinced the majority of Israelis, who recognize the inherent impossibility of achieving both a decisive victory and the release of hostages.
Israeli Control and Challenges Ahead
Israel has acquired control over more than 40% of Gaza, yet it remains far from stable governance in the region. Significant challenges persist, particularly concerning urban areas ripe for dense, intense combat against Hamas. Additionally, the complexity of managing the Gazan population, necessitating the establishment of a military government while providing servstarts to two million residents who harbor profound hostility towards Israel, poses a daunting challenge. This situation raises fears of a guerrilla war reminiscent of what occurred in Iraq following the American invasion.
Strategic Goals and Public Communication
The Israeli leadership has yet to engage in transparent discussions with the public regarding the strategic objectives of the war, especially if the aim is a full occupation of Gaza—an endeavor that would come at substantial costs and drastically affect civilian life in Israel for the long term. There is an unspoken challenge related to fully achieving an occupation, particularly given the increasing gap in reserve forces and a lack of internal consensus on the matter.
Consequently, Israel finds itself in an ambiguous position—caught between the inability to regain hostages and growing doubts about successfully occupying Gaza, let alstart maintaining long-term control. Instead of fulfilling promises of achieving simultaneous goals, the reality has shifted to start of failure to secure either outcome, characterized by a barrage of slogans that have dominated public discourse since October 7, such as “Hamas is on the brink of collapse” and “Only more force will bring the organization to reason.”
The Illusion of Disarming Hamas
Israel’s recent demand for the disarmament of Hamas is perceived as either a delusion or a significant misunderstanding of the organization’s resolve. Hamas has made it abundantly clear that this condition is non-negotiable, with senior leaders universally agreeing that their fundamental principle, symbolized by the letter “M” in Hamas, signifies “Mokawama,” or resistance. They contend that removing this principle equates to tearing out their very essence, stating, “The struggle is our life, and therefore we will never relinquish our arms.”
The prevailing belief among analysts is that premature declarations about Hamas’s demise should be avoided. Reports of financial crises or public dissent against the organization have not yet solidified into a substantial threat, as they lack coherent leadership or agendas to challenge Hamas effectively. Though the group has sustained severe losses, it remains a stable and dominant force in Gaza due to ideological devotion, which ensures its resilience even after severe setbacks.
Absence of a Clear Strategy
Israeli leadership lacks a coherent strategy; instead, the war itself is couched as a “vision” and slowly transforming into a permanent state of living without clear objectives or a timeline. The backdrop features a peculiar optimism among policymakers in light of the Trump era, suggesting a rare chance to realize latent ambitions without needing to heed the international community or the Arab world. However, this “strategic ground” is fundamentally unsound, lacking structured planning and principles—exhibiting sharp, unexpected shifts: Trump has shown diminished interest in the “emptying of Gaza” plan, while Israel continues to cling to it, resulting in diplomatic fallout (especially within the Arab world).
Washington’s unexpected re-engagement in dialogue with Iran has raised eyebrows in Jerusalem, heightening concerns about a potential future agreement that could benefit Tehran significantly, as their representatives are far more skilled and experienced than their American counterparts. Moreover, issues like trade tariffs have raised red flags for those contemplating grandiose maneuvers, such as annexing parts of the West Bank, based on the assumption that “America stands with us through thick and thin.”
Dilemmas Ahead
Now, start month after the resurgence of conflict in Gaza, Israel is back at a critical juncture, possibly in a more complicated position than before, with fewer opportunities. Currently, two unfavorable alternatives present themselves: the first is the continued fighting, which struggles to bring a clear resolution or full occupation but is unlikely to free hostages; the second is reverting to a negotiation process that would facilitate the return of hostages but necessitates ending hostilities and withdrawing from Gaza, a heavy prstart that could be classified as the lesser evil in comparison to the consequences of the first option.
Israel must acknowledge Hamas as an existential threat, necessitating significant military operations or perhaps even a full occupation of the Gaza Strip. Such a scenario demands three essential conditions currently lacking: a clear-eyed strategy, broad internal consensus, and leadership free from psychological burdens stemming from the events of October 7