Opposition within Israel is difficult to evaluate because everything it tainted with politics - people who hate Netanyahu have their own reasons to oppose the plan and their objections might be slanted by their own political ambitions.
So let's look at the analysis by Andrew Fox, who cares deeply but has no skin in the game.
First he looks at the tactical angle. He asserts that the military risks are formidable - there will always be more booby traps, terrorists popping up from tunnels, more IDF troops who will be killed. The IDF is already stretched thin and asking for a major new offensive with no clear end in sight is a very sobering thought. And the offensive can endanger the hostages - we already know Hamas kills hostages when they think the IDF is closing in.
Strategically, there is a large danger that this will become a quagmire from which Israel cannot extract itself. While the possibility of completely destroying Hamas is a very good thing, Israel would become legally obligated to ensure Gazans are fed, have hospitals, schools and everything else that occupiers are responsible for. Israel's economy is strong but adding the welfare of 2 million more people is a major blow to it. If Arab states do not cooperate - and they are definitely reluctant to - Israel has no one to hand Gaza off to.
This would further hurt Israel's diplomatic standing in the world, including among its Western allies. we already see the change in attitude, and this can make it permanent. It is no small matter.
Bibi certainly knows all of this. The downside is significant, the upside is very unclear. So what is he thinking?
I think - with no proof - that this is a gambit.
As things stood last week, Hamas had nothing more to lose and everything to gain - the world was supporting it diplomatically (as much as the West denies it), it was still killing soldiers weekly, and most importantly it survived, which it equates to victory.
Now, Bibi is telling Hamas that they indeed have a great deal more to lose - literally everything. They can escape with their lives or they can be destroyed utterly. Gaza can have a chance for being rebuilt or it can remain a wasteland. There is a clear vision - here's what things might look like if you disarm and leave, if you don't things will get even worse.
The only way this can work is if the plan is credible. So Bibi is adopting the Trumpian playbook of appearing irrational and willing to bet the farm, and telling the world that this is what must be done, consequences be damned. Chances are, Trump approves of doing this as a negotiating position and will back Netanyahu, which gives it more credibility. And Bibi is willing to look terrible to the Israeli public because that is how irrational leaders act.
I don't know if this is what is happening, but it seems to make more sense than the plan itself. The risks to the hostages and more IDF lives are too high.
But what is the alternative? How else can Hamas be dislodged from power?
Fox argues in a separate article that Israel has already practically won:
The plan to fully occupy Gaza is madness. It condemns the hostages to death, will attract international condemnation, and will not bring Israel any closer to its strategic goals. Hamas is effectively destroyed; Israel must learn when it has won. All militarily significant objectives have already been achieved. Continuing is pointless and will only cause more IDF casualties, more families to be shattered, with barely any benefit. It is astonishing and irresponsible that it is being considered as an option.
He thinks that Israel should allow in unlimited food and aid, but zero construction materials, arguing that even if Hamas skims money - which it will - it cannot practically rebuild.
Gaza’s rehabilitation should be explicitly dependent on Hamas’s disarmament and removal from control. Israel would refuse to allow rebuilding as long as Hamas (or any armed Islamist group) governs the Strip or keeps its weapons. This places the responsibility on Hamas: they cannot continue their “resistance” and expect to enjoy everyday life in Gaza. It also signals to international donors that indiscriminate aid, which, in the past, has led to construction materials being diverted to build tunnels and rockets, will not be permitted this time unless new conditions are met. Such leverage was arguably Israel’s strongest bargaining chip from the start, and it could still be used to secure concessions....Therefore, any economic pressure plan must be paired with a clear diplomatic message: Israel and its allies should explicitly state that “Gaza’s revival is possible but only after Hamas’s tyranny ends.” If communicated effectively, this could help create a rift between Gazans and Hamas, especially if regional players like Egypt or Gulf states endorse the message.
I don't know if this would work either.
But it is important to realize that the real reason it is so difficult for Israel to win is because the world has not let it win. Israel has had to fight under artificial constraints that no army has ever faced, like insistence that no refugees can seek shelter in other countries. There has been next to no world pressure on Hamas to stop using Gazans as human shields (or indeed to unconditionally release the hostages.)
Israel has been playing by the rules and the rules have been stacked against it. So it needs to change the game altogether. Whether it is as a gambit or truly wanting to occupy Gaza, Israel is only in this situation because it was forced into it by a world that has double standards for Israel.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy