Key Points: 

1. Israeli control of the Philadelphi Corridor is required to achieve two of the war’s objectives: Destroying Hamas’ military and governmental capabilities in Gaza, and preventing Gaza from becoming a terrorist base again in the future. Abandoning control of the corridor will be perceived as a Hamas achievement, enabling the terrorist group to rearm, and increasing its chances of surviving as the dominant power in Gaza after the war. Conversely, Israeli control over Philadelphi will be viewed as a clear indication of Hamas’ defeat following the October 7 massacre. It will also send a clear message to Hezbollah.

2. Israeli control of the Philadelphi Corridor is crucial to prevent the rearming of terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip, especially after their weapons stockpiles have dwindled during the course of the fighting. The IDF’s control of the route and the Rafah Crossing provides Israel with the opportunity to cut off a primary lifeline through which Hamas and other terrorist groups smuggled weapons, manufacturing materials, terrorist instructors, military experts, and special capabilities, often with Iranian involvement.This is also an opportunity to correct one of the fundamental weaknesses that have influenced the security reality in the Gaza Strip over the past two decades and to implement the principle that Israel will always defend itself by itself.  

3. The terrorist group’s processes of rearming and rebuilding their military capabilities occur far from public eye and at a gradual pace. Past experience demonstrates that over time, the enforcing authority’s determination and ability to prevent such processes decreases, due to the complexity and price of thwarting them. It is therefore critical that Israel adopt today robust solutions to the threat of future rearmament that will remain effective over time.

4. Physical barriers and technological means of detection are not sufficient to prevent smuggling. In addition to such systems and infrastructure, an independent and readily-deployable operational capability is required, one capable of operating in the field at short notice to thwart smuggling attempts. Reliance on international actors and foreign countries as an alternative has failed repeatedly over the years, and there is no reason to assume that this time will be different.

5. Abandoning control of the Philadelphi Route, which was achieved after the terrible price Israel paid, is an almost irreversible step. If Israel withdraws from the Corridor now, it will find it difficult in the future to ensure the legitimacy (domestic and international) needed to return and retake control.

6. Additionally, abandoning control of the Philadelphi Corridor and agreeing to rely on international actors will lead to intense international pressure in the future to adopt a similar approach with regards to Judea and Samaria and to Israel’s border with Jordan. 

7. Israeli control of the Philadelphi Corridor will also involve costs to Israel on the operational, diplomatic and legal levels. Yet while the severity of these costs will vary over time as a result of international conditions and Israeli counter-measures, it is certain that abandoning control of the Corridor will entail very high costs for Israel.Israel’s presence in the Corridor will allow it to advance arrangements in the operational, physical, diplomatic and humanitarian spheres that will enable Israel to protect its core interests and security.

8. In our assessment, a determined stance by Israel on this issue may also assist in increasing internal pressure within Hamas to adopt positions that will contribute to a comprehensive solution to the issue of hostage release.

Signed by: Meir Ben Shabbat, Ronen Levi, Col. (res.) Prof. Gabi Siboni, Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, Moshe Fuzaylov, Ruth Pines Feldman, Asher Fredman, Elie Klutstein.

• Key Points

  • The proposed hostage deal for Israel is a strategic risk and a moral and ethical error. The IDF’s withdrawal from the Philadelphi corridor would allow Hamas to renew its military buildup.
  • The return of hundreds of thousands of Gazans to the northern part of the Gaza Strip will bring thousands of terrorists with them. They do not need to bring weapons with them, as there are vast stockpiles of weapons in northern Gaza that the IDF has not yet located and destroyed.
  • Statements by senior military officials regarding the IDF’s ability to operate again in these areas as needed are presumptuous and disconnected from reality. To resume fighting, Israel would have to sacrifice the lives of its best soldiers and risk crisis with the US and the international community.
  • Only continued military pressure by Israel can increase the chances that Hamas will bend and might release the remaining hostages.

  Comprehensive Discussion Needed

  The proposed hostage deal requires a thoughtful and thorough discussion, analyzing all the relevant implications. One must not entertain the thought that those who oppose the emerging deal do so out of irrelevant considerations, lack of interest, or insensitivity to the release of the hostages and their fate. The authors of this article addressed this issue in December 2023, discussing the tension between national security and personal safety in the context of the current war’s goals. This logic remains valid today.

  Prioritizing Collective National Security

  Without addressing collective national security through achieving war goals, primarily the destruction of Hamas’s military and governmental capabilities, Israeli society is doomed to face many more painful tragedies of this kind. These will not be limited to the Palestinian arena and will exact a high and painful toll on both national and personal security levels. Israel must prioritize its national security while expressing absolute commitment to freeing all hostages. The political echelon must clarify to the public, and especially to the hostages’ families, the necessity of adhering to war goals and at the same time work to create the military and political conditions that are crucial for fulfilling the mission and achieving military and political victory, which will ultimately lead to the release of all hostages.

  Issues with the Emerging Deal

  The proposed deal’s problematic points include Hamas’s demand that the IDF withdraw from Rafah and the Philadelphi Corridor, an area filled with underground tunneling infrastructure used for smuggling weapons and strengthening terrorist organizations in Gaza. (On August 4, Israel exposed a Hamas tunnel large enough for trucks to drive through.) IDF operations in this area are crucial in cutting off smuggling routes from Egypt and preventing the entry of weapons, thus thwarting the renewed buildup of Hamas and other organizations in Gaza. Attempts to monitor this through technology and cameras have failed, resulting in massive amounts of weapons passing through the Rafah crossing.

  International Monitoring Failures

  The attempt to incorporate an international entity into the monitoring and supervision system also failed, as the EU-BAM monitoring team abandoned the crossing following Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip. The operational pattern of BAM-EU resembles that of UNDOF on the Golan Heights after the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War and that of the UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai Peninsula in 1967 after the Egyptian army entered the peninsula. Similarly, the UNIFIL force deployed in southern Lebanon following the adoption of Resolution 1701 and tasked with its enforcement failed miserably. Experience demonstrates that international forces are unable to perform such tasks effectively and persistently, especially in the Israeli context.

  Necessity for a Physical IDF Presence

  Complete disarmament of Gaza is impossible without thwarting any attempt at weapon smuggling through Philadelphi as well as other crossings into the strip. To ensure no weapons can be smuggled into Gaza, it is imperative that IDF forces are present in the surrounding Gaza area. This is true in general, and it most certainly applies to the entire period of constructing a barrier along the Philadelphi Corridor, until its completion.

  Summary

  The proposed deal is a strategic threat, as well as a moral and ethical mistake, by all indicators.

  The deal includes several phases and demands the withdrawal of IDF forces from the Philadelphi Corridor, the Netzarim Route, and northern Gaza, and eventually also from the security buffer zone. Moreover, the phased hostage release plan is intended, from Hamas’s perspective, to prolong the cessation of fighting indefinitely. Agreeing to this demand would mean that Israel forfeits all the remaining leverage it has to ensure the release of hostages and the destruction of Hamas’s military and governmental capabilities.

  Such withdrawal would enable Hamas to resume smuggling from Egypt, accelerate the process of military buildup, and maintain a real military threat to Israel. The return of hundreds of thousands of Gazan civilians to the northern part of the Gaza Strip would also allow the return of thousands of terrorists. The claim that armed militants will not be allowed back is deceptive, and statements about the IDF’s ability to operate again in these areas are disconnected from reality.

  Ending the war in the Gaza Strip is a cornerstone of the US regional strategic vision, which, in Washington’s view, could also lead to a ceasefire in the north and a reconciliation with Iran and its proxies, thereby advancing the normalization process with Saudi Arabia. Thus, the US is adamant about this, and will attempt to prevent Israel from resuming combat once IDF forces exit the Gaza Strip. In addition, the presence of regional and international forces, along with Palestinian Authority forces, will complicate the operational reality in Gaza and hinder the IDF’s ability to resume fighting against Hamas.

  If Israel had accepted such a deal, Muhamad Deif, Aref Saleme, Rauhi Mushtawa and others would not have been eliminated and Hamas would have had more capacity to reconstitute itself rapidly. The fact that central figures have been eliminated increases the pressure on Sinwar and facilitate conditions for a better deal and an improved security reality in the Gaza Strip.

  Alternative Proposal

  A more logical and moral alternative is an Israeli proposal or ultimatum for the release of all hostages in one phase, in exchange for the lives of Hamas leaders and remaining organization members in Gaza, who will be allowed to leave Gaza unharmed. Hamas will likely reject such a deal, in which case the IDF should conquer all of Gaza, establish military governance, and prevent Hamas from regaining control.

  From day one, it was sustained Israeli military pressure that forced Hamas to be flexible, and it seems that only continued military pressure can increase the chances of recovering Israeli hostages and forcing a change in Hamas’ position.

Israel is grappling with three main alternative strategies for continuation of the Gaza war, aiming to achieve its declared goals: the military and governmental collapse of Hamas, the release of all hostages, and the creation of a new reality that will prevent Gaza from again becoming a base for attacks on Israel.

The supporters of each alternative strategy express absolute confidence in the righteousness of their position, alongside low attentiveness to criticism and arguments pointing to difficulties and drawbacks. It is important to examine each approach with a clear mind, with integrity, and with as few preconceptions as possible.

Strategy A: Hostage Deal and an End to the War

The first strategy calls upon the Israeli government to accept Hamas’s terms for release of the hostages, including an end to the war and immediate withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza. Among the proponents of this strategy are hostage families, senior commentators, figures on the Israeli left, many in the international community, and (according to The New York Times) several senior IDF officers. They believe that the hostages, especially those still alive, cannot be freed by any other means, and that their fate outweighs any other consideration. They also claim that since Israel has already severely harmed Hamas and its supporters among Gaza residents, Hamas will find it difficult to rebuild its power in the near future and will not be able to repeat the October 7th attack.

Additionally, they argue, Israel will not be able to bear the burden of continued fighting for much longer and therefore should end it now. According to its proponents, this strategy will also lead to an end of the conflict on the northern border, as promised by Hezbollah, halt the erosion of international support for Israel, ease tensions with the United States, and may even advance the desired normalization with Saudi Arabia.

The practical implication of this strategy is leaving Hamas as the ruling power in Gaza, abandoning the effort to prevent it from regaining its strength as well as the vision of de-radicalization of the Gazan population – costs that the supporters of this strategy are willing to bear. They believe that Hamas as an idea cannot be defeated and that any form of (Palestinian? local?) governing body in Gaza is preferable to Israeli rule or the chaos that will prevail in the aftermath of the war. However, the implementation of this strategy would mean that Israel is, unwillingly, declaring Hamas as the victor in the war and admitting that the decision to initiate the October 7 attack was wise and based on sound strategic thinking.

Hamas anticipated a harsh Israeli response but assumed that nevertheless it would emerge the ruling power in Gaza because Israel could not bear the cost of removing it from power. From Hamas’s perspective, as seen by Iran and its proxies, the primary goal at this point is to keep Hamas in power at any cost. Hamas’ victory will be seen as a huge achievement and will be translated into continued strengthening of the organization with the aim of forcing further concessions from Israel, undermining the confidence of the Zionist enterprise in its ability to exist in the heart of a hostile region, and expanding Iranian influence in the Middle East, including into Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula. Within the Palestinian system, it will mean further strengthening of Hamas and the Islamist version of the Palestinian narrative of struggle.

Strategy B: A Deal Followed by Continuous Military Pressure

Strategy B, supported by the security establishment, argues that the main effort in Gaza should be to continue military pressure on Hamas until it is completely dismantled. This involves the third phase of the war, i.e., raids and pinpoint strikes that will exact a painful price from the terrorist organization and force it to accept the hostage deal proposed by Israel and backed by the United States, the mediators, and the international community.

Supporters of this strategy see the slight flexibility in Hamas’s position as proof of the validity of this argument. For Israel, they argue, the costs of continued fighting will gradually decrease while Hamas, which has already suffered a severe blow, will continue to pay heavily, including the potential targeting of its senior leadership.

Concurrently, to restore legitimacy, Israel will continue humanitarian efforts and try to gradually promote governance structures that are not affiliated with Hamas or other terror organizations, preferably ones not tied to Fatah but without excluding them either. According to this strategy, the IDF will retain full responsibility for fighting terrorism in Gaza and will continue to maintain its presence in the Philadelphi corridor (until an arrangement is reached with Egypt to ensure no smuggling occurs) and the Netzarim corridor, as well as in the perimeter surrounding Gaza.

This strategy would leave Hamas in control of most of Gaza and its population but would allow Israel to address security risks without restrictions while not tasked with the burden of managing the civilian life in Gaza (like the situation in Palestinian Authority areas in Judea and Samaria). The IDF will then be able to allocate more resources to addressing the threat from Lebanon (if attempts to achieve an agreement through diplomatic means fail). Although this does not fully meet the expectations of the US, it may significantly mitigate disagreements with Washington.

However, there are several problems with pursuing this course of action. Firstly, it deviates from the declared goals of defeating Hamas and allows Hamas to remain in power for an extended period, inspiring hope among the Iranians and their allies that this would become the new permanent reality. The proponents of this strategy do not use the terms victory or defeat and replace them with the term “dismantle” that means making the military formations of Hamas dysfunctional.

Secondly, this approach offers only partial solution to the issue of hostages, as Hamas would have no interest in releasing all hostages without an Israeli commitment to a complete cessation of fighting and full withdrawal from Gaza (i.e., shifting to Strategy A). As such, this strategy, too, may play into the hands of Hamas and Iran, albeit to a lesser extent, and would worsen Israel’s strategic situation, with all the risks that entails.

The claim that the IDF will be capable of dealing with any emerging threat from Gaza after evacuating it, including the Philadelphi and Netzarim corridors may easily turn into empty promises. It also completely ignores a fundamental issue – the need to change the Palestinian narrative, i.e., de-radicalization (although its supporters hope that the initial criticism of Hamas in Gaza will increase as the harsh reality weighs on the residents).

Supporters of this strategy argue that Hamas is an “idea” and therefore it cannot be defeated, and in doing so they justify the limited goals set forth.

Strategy C: Defeat, Control, and De-radicalize

Strategy C, promoted by the Israeli government (and which I tend to favor), holds that once the hostage deal option has been exhausted (and either culminates with a deal that is acceptable by Israel or fails), Israel should pursue the total military and governmental defeat of Hamas, deploying significant forces to fully dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure, and replacing it temporarily with Israeli military governance, as a first stage. Once it is clear that Hamas is not returning to power, efforts will be made to transfer many of its responsibilities to Palestinian entities that are not linked to terror, and/or to an international and inter-Arab administration that will manage Gaza’s rehabilitation.

In the process, supporters of this approach hope that it will be possible to secure the release of the hostages through military pressure; and in exchange for an Israeli commitment not to harm Hamas’ leadership and remaining militants, allow them to leave Gaza safely. This strategy would improve Israel’s strategic position, severely damage the Iranian axis both among Palestinians and across the region, place Israel in a favorable position against Hezbollah, and prepare the ground for de-radicalization steps towards a long-term change in Gaza.

The problematic aspects of this strategy are its low feasibility and the high potential of damaging relations with the US and Israel’s legitimacy in the international arena. The main argument against it is that while Israel can destroy Hamas brigades, it cannot eliminate its ideology, which is deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of Gazans. It is also argued that the cost of Israeli control of Gaza to remove Hamas from power is too high, both in terms of the military force required and the casualties resulting from prolonged presence in an area full of terrorists. This would also impose heavy economic burden on the Israeli society and damage relations with the US, which has explicitly declared its opposition to Israel’s control of Gaza. Most of these claims are exaggerated in order to convince the government avoid implementing this strategy.

Conclusions

All three strategies should be taken with the utmost seriousness and deliberated respectfully and objectively by both proponents and opponents, with the understanding that all parties seek the best result for the State of Israel. It is essential that discussion be substantive and involve as many politicians and experts as possible on military, security, home front security, economics, and foreign relations. Additionally, to ensure that the chosen strategy considers diverse perspectives and receives broad support, a national emergency government should be formed, which is clearly necessary in Israel’s current predicament. The brave IDF soldiers who will implement the adopted strategy deserve no less.

While discussions in Israel increasingly focus on transitioning to a new phase of the conflict, the situation on the ground remains volatile. Approximately 20 rockets were recently launched from Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip toward communities in southern Israel, and intense fighting continues in the city of Rafah.

The threat extends beyond Gaza’s borders. Near Tulkarm in the West Bank, an explosive device was detonated against Israeli forces operating in the Nur al-Shams refugee camp. Hamas official Husam Badran recently outlined the group’s strategy: “We are currently working to increase and develop resistance in the West Bank.” He called on anyone with weapons to take action.

In a separate interview, senior Hamas figure Khaled Mashal stated that the Oct. 7 attack created an opportunity for Palestinians to revive their longstanding ambition: a single Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”

The purpose that the discourse on the imminent end of intense fighting is meant to serve is unclear. The risks it poses are evident: it generates hope for our enemies and, conversely, may reduce our forces’ operational readiness and vigilance. While Israel has dealt significant blows to Hamas, the group is far from defeated. Hamas retains a considerable fighting force, substantial weaponry, an extensive tunnel network, and a largely intact leadership structure both within Gaza and abroad.

The organization maintains control over areas of Gaza where Israeli forces are not present. Its unyielding stance in hostage negotiations demonstrates not only an ability to coordinate under difficult circumstances but also a degree of confidence in its position.

As long as Israel’s stated war objectives remain unmet, including the formulation of an acceptable hostage release deal, pressure on Hamas should not be reduced. The opposite is true. Our forces on the ground have proved that they know how to achieve their objectives. They should be given everything necessary to do so, including authorizations to use intense fire as much as needed to reduce risks and maintain their safety. It is appropriate to avoid messages that create hesitation or confusion.

The time has come to target senior Hamas officials living abroad, who currently operate with relative impunity. Israel must maintain several points of leverage against Hamas to impede its recovery: Control over humanitarian aid distribution; preventing residents from returning to northern Gaza; maintaining control of key border crossings; keeping Gaza geographically divided; establishing a wide security perimeter with strict rules of engagement and carefully managing the issue of Palestinian detainees (under no circumstances should we agree to a situation where they are released due to a shortage of detention facilities or for other technical and administrative reasons.)

The many question marks in the current policy should be replaced with exclamation points, both regarding the pressing humanitarian issues and undermining Hamas’ governance efforts. The principle of simplicity also applies in this regard.

Our success in the Gaza Strip is crucial to prevent Hamas from realizing its ambitions in the West Bank as well, and to ensure that when the time comes, and to ensure we can address the northern front from a position of strength when the time comes.

Published in  Israel Hayom, July 2, 2024.

In the complex web of dilemmas facing Israeli decision-makers, the war to decisively defeat the Hamas terror organization must remain a cornerstone of policy and action. After Oct. 7, there is no room for maneuver – any other outcome will have far-reaching consequences. A determined effort to achieve all our objectives in the Gaza Strip will also shake Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah’s confidence in the effectiveness of his attrition strategy against Israel and provide him and Lebanese leaders with a stark illustration of the potential outcomes of a war with Israel.

The dispute at the top political-security echelon on Gaza-related issues reflects not only differences in approaches to the strategic purpose (real, not declared) of the war but also gaps in assessing the effectiveness of efforts and the synchronization of the Gaza fighting with other threats and challenges. Our enemies exploit this disagreement as propaganda material, presenting it as expressions of frustration and despair, and as signs of breakdown within the Israeli system.

Examining the conduct of the Israeli military and society, along with the war’s achievements, provides a mixed balance that leans more toward the positive, optimistic side than the opposing view.

This refers not only to military achievements but even to the war’s impact on public opinion in Gaza, as can be learned from the results of an updated quarterly survey conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research headed by Khalil Shikaki. This survey indicated a decrease in the percentage of Gaza residents who still support Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, a decrease in satisfaction with Hamas, and a decline in the percentage of Gazans who believe Hamas will win the war. While the data is still far from indicating a complete shift (and in the West Bank, they even reflect a trend of strengthening for Hamas), they should not be ignored.

The differences in approaches within the Israeli system are not always reconcilable, but it is possible to reduce expectation gaps between the political echelon and the security system, and between both of these and the public.

The first gap concerns the required achievement. The goal defined by politicians is the destruction of Hamas’ military and governmental capabilities, but there is still a need to define metrics by which its achievement can be assessed. Security officials have often used the term “dismantling,” referring to dismantling the ability of Hamas brigades and battalions to operate as organized frameworks. Indeed, the IDF has dismantled most of them.

In a war against a regular state army, collapsing the combat system, dismantling it, and certain destruction of its forces is sufficient to make its fighting hopeless in a way that will lead to deterrence and surrender. This happened in our wars against Arab armies until 1973.

In the case before us, fighting against a hybrid entity – an army that knows how to switch to operate as guerrilla and terror cells (or against another jihadist army, like the Nazis and Japanese) – is not enough to defeat it. Dismantling the system is necessary to achieve the second decisive factor: eliminating the enemy and/or uprooting it from the area. This can explain the return to places where the IDF has already operated in the past and the lengthy time required.

Another gap exists regarding the destruction of governmental capabilities. While one approach suggests that the way to revoke Hamas’ control is to allow another entity (not the IDF) to take over civilian affairs management in Gaza, the other opinion holds that no entity other than the IDF can succeed under current conditions, and in any case, every Hamas governmental power center must be collapsed, even if there is temporarily no alternative. Either way, there is no known plan to achieve the goal, including severing Hamas’ control of humanitarian aid that provides it with breathing room and positions of power.

An additional gap is related to the pace and intensity of the fighting. These are influenced by the constraints Israel faces – political, operational, and legal. However, the current approach reduces efficiency, limits pressure points on the enemy, allows its forces to escape to areas outside the combat zone and reorganize there, prolongs the war, and strengthens the sense of stagnation. A strategy of accumulating tactical achievements comes with high prices that can only be demanded from the public when there is no other alternative.

The political and security leadership would do well to clarify these issues within the discussion rooms. Despite its drawbacks, the dispute can be an opportunity to strengthen our confidence not only in the justness of the war but also in the way it is being conducted.

Targeting Hamas leaders will clarify that there is a price for their refusal
Unlike in these areas, there seems to be no dispute about the importance of eliminating Hamas leadership and the expected benefits in relation to all the goals Israel has defined. While the difficulty in doing so regarding commanders in Gaza can be understood, it is not understandable regarding the organization’s leaders abroad, who star in the media and behave as if their immunity is guaranteed.

The central role played by this command, and its efforts to drag Israel into a multi-front war, require Israel to take systematic action against it until all its components are neutralized – especially after the Oct. 7 onslaught and after the clear wording provided by Khaled Mashal regarding Hamas’ commitment to destroy Israel.

Targeting them will clarify that there is a price for their refusal of a release deal and for the passing time. It will help disrupt the ability to control and coordinate and make recovery efforts more difficult.

Without an effective command abroad, Hamas will lose its status as a movement with regional influence, even if it continues to exist as a local persecuted organization. This is a shared interest for Israel and its neighbors, and a goal that serves the American desire to shape a new regional order.

Published in Israel Hayom, June November 23, 2024.

The Palestinian-Arab war against the pre-state Jewish community in the land of Israel, and afterwards in the state of Israel, can be divided into a number of stages. Until May 1948 it was primarily a war of militias in the territory of the British Mandate. In the quarter-century after the declaration of the establishment of the state of Israel, it was a total Arab war, in which the Arab world hoped to defeat Israel by conquering the territory. After the failure of the Yom Kippur War, the Palestinian struggle changed its form and transitioned to a combination of terrorism inside and outside Israel, a diplomatic struggle in the international arena and a public relations effort to weaken Israel. In all of these stages, the Arab-Palestinian aspiration remained identical: to foil the establishment of the state of Israel; and after it was established, to oppose its existence within any borders.

This article will deal with one facet of the Palestinian struggle against Israel, and that is the use of the Palestinian refugee problem as a demographic tool to eliminate the Jewish state. It will present the Palestinian position on the refugee question during negotiations that took place between the PLO and the PA and Israel, and will clarify the status of the Palestinian demand for massive return of refugees to within Israel (what is known as “the right of return”). This position, and the use of demography as a tool to fight Israel, will be demonstrated via internal documents of the Palestinian negotiation team.

Together they present a clear picture of the use of millions of Palestinians, some of whom are fourth and fifth generation descendants of Palestinian displaced persons and refugees from the War of Independence in 1948, as a tool for turning Israel from a state with a clear Jewish majority into a state with an Arab majority, thereby rendering it an additional Arab state in the Middle East.

For the full article

Last week’s dramatic rescue of four Israeli hostages from Gaza included a shocking revelation: The hostages, who endued unbearable torture and constant threats of death, were held captive by Palestinian civilians in their home in central Gaza—including a journalist with bylines in Al Jazeera and his physician father. Amazingly, as soon the hostages were returned to Israeli soil, the operation was denounced by the usual suspects for the hundreds of “Palestinian civilians” it had claimed as casualties. The United Nations called the rescue operation a “war crime,” while EU Foreign Policy chief Josep Borrell called it a “bloodbath” and “massacre.” Naturally, the press reflexively parroted Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry figures of purported casualties during the operation.

It’s a perfect opportunity for a long-overdue conversation about the use of the phrase “Palestinian civilian.”

Let’s get something straight from the outset: When you take hostages, you risk death. The moral and legal responsibility for any casualties resulting from the operation to free the hostages rests fully with Hamas and those holding hostages captive.

Under international law, it is a sacrosanct principle that civilians enjoy special protection, and the intentional targeting or harming of them during hostilities, is a grave war crime. But one should not need to be a legal scholar to understand that if you are a journalist or physician holding hostages, you are no longer a “civilian.” In fact, the Geneva Convention makes it unequivocally clear that civilians lose that protection when they take direct part in the hostilities.

In other words, when you hold hostages captive, you become a legitimate military target and should not be surprised when the Israel Defense Forces come knocking on your door.

And it wasn’t just these four hostages. In addition to the four Israeli hostages rescued from Nuseirat in central Gaza, there have been countless reports from hostages returning to Israel describing being held captive by ordinary Gazans, including families, doctors, teachers, and even U.N. employees.

It is also well known that civilians in Gaza willingly joined Hamas en masse on October 7 and took part in the massacre, rapes, and abductions on that day.

How many Gazan “civilians” helped Hamas move and store rockets? How many “civilians” offered up their homes to hold hostages captive or keep guard to make sure they did not escape? How many have been the willing accomplices and collaborators of Hamas in the worst massacre and crimes against the Jewish people since the Holocaust?

These questions are crucial. Yet the international community is failing to ask these questions.

Instead, lawmakers, journalists and diplomats are blindly accepting reported casualty figures from the Gaza Health Ministry, as if it were Moses delivering the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Apparently, eight months into this war, it still has to be repeated that the Gaza “Health Ministry” is no more than a propaganda arm of the Hamas terror group.

A group that murders, massacres, rapes, beheads, and abducts people, and has a relentless history of fabricating stories, inflating casualties, and using their own civilians as human shields, is not exactly the world’s most trustworthy source.

This has not stopped the international community from using the Hamas figures as evidence to maliciously accuse Israel of genocide, call for embargoes, or seek arrest warrants for Israeli leaders.

Even if you accept Hamas’s figure of 30,000 reported deaths in Gaza during Israel’s war, the ratio of Palestinian non-combatants to terrorists killed has been estimated to be one to one, a level unprecedented in modern warfare. Meanwhile, the actual number of civilian casualties was recently significantly altered when the U.N. acknowledged that over 10,000 of the reported casualties were missing, not verified deaths; they also halved their demographic estimates of men versus women and children. With these updates, the already questionable figures become much lower. It would be lower still if those who have been reported as “civilians” were in fact combatants or, as we saw this week, holding hostages captive.

For Hamas, civilian death is their strategy; Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has called civilian deaths a “necessary sacrifices.”

As long as the press and world leaders fail to ask these questions, continuing to push false narratives and unsubstantiated casualty figures, they are only enabling and empowering Hamas and perpetuating the violence and suffering they claim to seek to end.

The article was co-authored with John Spencer. John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point and host of the ”Urban Warfare Project Podcast.” He is the co-author of ”Understanding Urban Warfare.

Published in Newsweek, June 17, 2024.

The five demands that Hamas has put forth in the negotiations for the release of the Israeli hostages are aimed at preserving its status as the dominant power in the Gaza Strip, allowing its members to emerge from hiding and resume their routine activities without fear of Israeli retaliation, enabling the reconstruction of its military capabilities, and capitalizing on the political gains from the war in the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas’ insistence on receiving international guarantees that Israel will not violate the terms of the deal is intended to maintain international involvement in the conflict, anticipating that pressure will be primarily directed toward Israel, serving Hamas’ interests at every stage.

The notion that Hamas could agree to a ceasefire for the exchange and then renew hostilities under some pretext to achieve its goals overlooks the dynamics inherent in such processes, which would effectively prevent such a scenario.

The key costs Israel would incur under the proposed deal include ending the war without destroying Hamas, allowing the reconstruction of its military capabilities in Gaza, creating conditions that enhance its standing in the West Bank, heightening risks due to the involvement of hundreds of released militants in terrorist activities, and potentially encouraging increased use of kidnappings by terrorist groups emboldened by the current outcome.

Moreover, on a psychological level, the deal would be perceived as a successful conclusion to the war Hamas imposed on Israel and a failure by the IDF to achieve its military objectives despite the prolonged fighting. Any decision by the government to support or reject the deal is legitimate, provided it is made with a sober assessment of the comprehensive advantages and risks it entails.

In response to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s accusation of obstructing efforts to reach an agreement, Hamas once again outlined its primary demands in exchange for releasing the captives: “A comprehensive agreement based on a permanent ceasefire, complete Israeli withdrawal from the Strip, return of displaced Gaza residents to their homes, reconstruction of the Strip, and a serious prisoner exchange deal.” The five demands outlined reveal Hamas’ strategic objectives for the day after.

Irreversible cessation of hostilities

For Hamas, the cornerstone of any deal is an agreement on ending the war, leading to the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the pre-escalation lines and limiting Israel’s ability to conduct counter-terrorism operations in Gaza. This would allow Hamas members to safely emerge from their hiding places, reorganize, restore their governance, and rebuild their capabilities.

Concurrent with the ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces, captives would be released in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, displaced Gazans would be allowed to return to the Strip, and an internationally funded reconstruction process would commence.

Israel would not be able to resume hostilities after their cessation. In such a reality, and after the Israeli war machine has been shut down, it would be impossible to simply flip a switch and restart the fighting as if nothing had happened. Even in the face of ceasefire violations by Hamas, the international community would pressure Israel to resort to a “proportionate response.” Domestically, too, it would be challenging to garner support for renewing the war, given the costs and the additional threats and challenges that would arise. The practical implication is that the war would effectively end with Hamas remaining the dominant force in Gaza and having achieved gains that would enhance its standing even in the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority.

No disarmament for Hamas

At Hamas’ disposal would not only be a network of tunnels spanning dozens of kilometers but also the means to rapidly restore its local arms production industry. Combined with the substantial resources that would be introduced for civilian reconstruction, it is reasonable to assume that within a short period, Hamas could replenish its arms shortages. As long as Hamas remains the governing authority and the de facto ruler, no external party – neither Arab states nor international organizations – would be able to effectively monitor and prevent these risks.

Regarding the prevention of smuggling from Sinai into Gaza, without effective Israeli control over the Philadelphia Corridor and the Rafah Crossing, Israel would be forced to rely on international arrangements, emphasizing security coordination with Egypt. Past experience does not inspire optimism for the future. Moreover, the inherently gradual nature of military buildup, occurring out of the spotlight, would hinder the application of pressure and allow for incremental adaptation to the evolving reality.

Return of displaced Gazans: Accepting tunnel reality

The extensive network of tunnels beneath residential areas in Gaza City provides Israel with justification for not allowing displaced Gazans to return to their homes and to continue considering these areas as “combat zones.” This could have served as significant leverage for the Gazan population seeking to return to normalcy, pressuring Hamas. Israel’s concession on this issue not only eliminates this source of pressure but may also be interpreted as tacit acceptance of this reality, which contradicts the concept of security demilitarization.

Consolidating power in the West Bank and PA

Hamas’ insistence that militants from the West Bank released as part of the deal be returned to their homes rather than Gaza reflects not only the position of strength from which Hamas leaders are negotiating but also the organization’s intent to leverage their release to enhance its political standing in the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority and, of course, to utilize their terrorist capabilities to strengthen its infrastructure in that area.

Continued action against Hamas necessary

At this juncture, Hamas’ elaborate response has spared Israel from the in-depth discussion required regarding the implications of the deal on the table. Decision-makers face an unenviable task. Any decision they make will be a case of “woe to those who fashion me, and woe to those who birth me.”

For now, it is prudent to continue and intensify efforts to dismantle Hamas’ infrastructure, increase efforts to target Sinwar and other field commanders, work to eliminate Hamas leaders abroad who constitute the organization’s political, media, and economic arm – for they are the ones who transform Hamas into a regionally influential entity. If we do not act against them, they will be central players in the reconstruction of Hamas in the Strip.

Published in  Israel Hayom, June 16, 2024.

The deal laid out by US President Joe Biden in his May 31 address on the war in Gaza is disingenuous and disastrous. His remarks reflect the failed paradigms, illusions, and wishful thinking that led to October 7. The plan he described, if implemented, would create an existential threat to the State of Israel.

President Biden’s deceptive and dangerous claims are numerous. Here are a few of the most egregious: The US president began his remarks by declaring that his goal is an end to the war, “one that… creates a better ‘day after’ in Gaza without Hamas in power…” However, the rest of his speech included no concrete steps or road maps for removing Hamas from power. The opposite was true. The proposed outline would ensure that Hamas remained in power and was able to rebuild its military strength.

President Biden assured that “Palestinian civilians would return to their homes… in all areas of Gaza, including the North.” He seemed to be claiming that it would only be civilians that would return to northern Gaza. But the fact is that there would be no way to ensure that Hamas fighters did not return there as well. These fighters aren’t wearing uniforms and their guns are hidden in the hundreds of tunnels that still exist in northern Gaza.

With this plan, Hamas would quickly reassert its control over every inch of the Strip.

Biden then made a statement of unparalleled chutzpah: “The people of Israel should know they can make this offer without any further risk to their own security because they’ve already devastated Hamas forces over the past eight months…” The reality is that Hamas still has many intact fighters and senior leadership – even if it is now operating as smaller terror cells rather than battalions, or laying low until the IDF withdraws.

Once reconstruction began in Gaza, the Islamist terror group would quickly rebuild its capabilities. The idea that leaving Hamas in power does not constitute a severe risk to Israel’s security, especially to those Israelis in the western Negev region, is ludicrous.

President Biden suggested that the United States would “help forge a diplomatic resolution, one that ensures Israel’s security” and that “with a deal, a rebuilding of Gaza will begin… in a manner that does not allow Hamas to re-arm.”

He ignores the inconvenient truth that diplomatic resolutions have failed time and again. They failed to prevent Hezbollah from greatly increasing its arsenal following the Second Lebanon War – and they failed to prevent the massive smuggling of weapons to Hamas from Egypt following the previous rounds of fighting in Gaza.

Likewise, the idea that with Hamas still in power, reconstruction could take place without enabling the terrorist group to rearm, is simply laughable. The current war in Gaza has revealed the far-reaching extent to which supplies that entered Gaza over the years, including for humanitarian purposes, were used first and foremost by Hamas, to build its terror infrastructure.

With regard to those who would oppose such a plan, Biden claimed that “the hostages are not a priority for them.”

This was a false and outrageous statement.

The fact that there are those who recognize that leaving Hamas in power will destroy Israel’s deterrence and encourage countless murderous attacks and kidnappings of Israelis does not mean that they care any less about the hostages. They simply believe that the efforts to free the hostages must take place on the basis of a pragmatic understanding of the Middle East, and of the psychopathic but intelligent enemy that Israel faces.

It is important to realize that while Hamas may be willing to release some of the hostages, it will never release all of them, as they serve as a human shield for its leadership. Under the deal that Biden describes, a ceasefire will continue, and Hamas will remain in power, as long as negotiations over the second stage of the hostage release continue – negotiations that can drag on for years.

Biden then assured that the “United States will always ensure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself.”

Let there be no mistake, however. Biden did not say that he supports Israel’s right to destroy the genocidal terrorist organizations bent on its destruction.

He said that Israel will have the right to shoot down rockets fired at its cities, while its citizens hide in shelters. This is the Biden doctrine with regards to Israel: Defense, yes. Offense, no.

President Biden concluded his remarks with the sentence: “It’s time for this war to end and for the ‘day after’ to begin.” This sentence encapsulated the failed paradigms that led to October 7. The idea that if we just stop fighting, the ‘day after’ can begin, is entirely false.

If the fighting stops with Hamas in power, the ‘day after’ will never begin. We will simply return to October 6. Only this time, with zero deterrence, an emboldened ring of terror along all of Israel’s borders, and large swaths of Israel’s territory in the South and North abandoned due to the ongoing terror threats.

To be fair – the degree to which Biden is accurately describing an outline that Israel proposed, and to what degree he is putting his own spin on the deal, is unclear. If an Israeli leader believes that it is necessary and correct to let Hamas win in order to return some of the hostages, then that leader should stand up and say so clearly.

The dilemma is a heart-wrenching one.

The fact is that the deal, as described by President Biden, would create an existential threat to Israel’s very existence. It would lead to countless terror attacks, kidnappings, instability, and war. Israel’s decisions must be based on a clear-sighted recognition of reality, however harsh.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, June 3, 2024.

On May 15, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav said that if no alternative to Hamas rule is presented for Gaza, only two options would remain: Hamas rule or Israeli military rule. “Both alternatives are bad,” he said.

“I will not agree to Israeli military rule in in Gaza, Israel must not establish civilian rule in Gaza…I call on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a decision and declare that Israel will not establish civilian control over the Gaza Strip and that Israel will not establish military governance in Gaza,” he said.

He further noted that “the end of the military campaign must come together with political action” and said that “the day after Hamas will only be achieved with Palestinian entities backed by Arab countries taking control of Gaza. This is in Israel’s interests in order to achieve our goals.”

He did not specify which Palestinian entities should control Gaza, or how to get such elements to control Gaza.

It is true that the military campaign must be accompanied by political action to stabilize Gaza and bring about a situation in which it no longer poses a security threat to Israel. For several reasons however, there is still a long way to go until we reach this goal.

First, the fighting is far from over. The IDF is currently operating throughout the Gaza Strip, including in places it has already occupied and partially mopped up. The scope of the terrorist infrastructure built by Hamas  above and below ground is unprecedented, and the quantity and dispersal of weapons enormous. Cleansing the Gaza Strip of this infrastructure will require time, and so Gaza will continue to be a combat zone for the near future.

Second, despite the extensive damage inflicted on it, Hamas has managed to partially rehabilitate itself in some places. The Israel Defense Forces has succeeded in dismantling most of Hamas’ military apparatus; its command-and-control systems and organized units (brigades, battalions, companies) are no longer functioning, or only partially functioning. At this time, several organized battalions remain in Rafah and the central camps.

Hamas, however, is rehabilitating local networks in order to conduct guerilla attacks on IDF forces and from time to time to launch high-trajectory fire at communities near the Gaza Strip and even locations farther away. In addition, since Hamas is deeply embedded amid the Gazan population, in many cases “civilians” not officially belonging to Hamas’s military organization also operate against the IDF. As a result, the IDF has had to return to many areas in the Gaza Strip to disrupt terrorist networks.

Third, Hamas has managed to retain civilian and governmental capabilities. It has done so by taking control of the humanitarian aid reaching Gaza, using it to deepen its control over the population; it sells this aid at exorbitant prices to the civilian population.

Hamas thus sends a message to the population that it intends to remain in control and that they would be well advised to cooperate with it. Hamas’s continued civilian control even in areas where the IDF has dealt it heavy blows allows it to rehabilitate its military capabilities as well. The preservation of Hamas’s civilian and governmental capabilities thus perpetuates the continuation of the fighting. The key to destroying Hamas’s military capabilities permanently thus lies in taking away its civil and governmental capabilities in the Gaza Strip.

A governmental alternative to Hamas in the Gaza Strip requires the destruction of Hamas’s military, as well as civil and governmental capabilities. Only after this will it be possible to achieve a governmental alternative to Hamas. The group will not disappear voluntarily; it can only be removed by force.

In the interim, there is no non-Hamas-affiliated entity willing to accept civilian control of the Gaza Strip. Only the IDF can do it. Therefore, as part of the military effort, the IDF needs to assume civilian control in areas in which it has military control. This will allow the emergence of elements in Gaza not under Hamas’s control. After this interim period, and only after the complete removal of Hamas from the civilian power centers in the Gaza Strip, permanent governmental alternatives can be examined.

Establishment of an alternative to Hamas in the Gaza Strip will have to lean on several principles. The first is that the only armed element operating in Gaza be the IDF. Civilian entities can operate only with the means to maintain public order and carry out basic policing activity. Israel must strictly enforce this principle to prevent a slow spillover of  “police” mechanisms toward  military capabilities, such as the commando forces (the Dayton Force established with American funding, training, and equipment) of the Palestinian Authority, established in violation of the Oslo agreements.

The second principle is the maintenance of IDF’s operational freedom of action throughout the Gaza Strip.

The third principle is Israeli control of all crossings into the Gaza Strip (including the Rafah crossing and the Philadelphi Corridor).

After implementing these principles, civil alternatives in the Gaza Strip can be examined.

The first alternative is the emergence of local elements that will operate either in the entire Gaza Strip or parts of it. This alternative can exist under the guidance and mentoring of international and/or regional powers. Another alternative which has been raised is the return of the P.A. to Gaza. Without addressing the conditions that P.A. officials have set for such a return, it should be remembered that the P.A. is corrupt and supports terrorism.

In addition, senior P.A. officials have expressed support for Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre. Indeed, P.A. officials regard Hamas as a legitimate member of the Palestinian political body. The legitimacy of the P.A. among the Palestinian population is extremely low, and there is no reason to bring the problems that the P.A. has created in Judea and Samaria into Gaza. In effect, this is the replacement of an element hostile to Israel with another hostile element. Add to this the fact that all the U.S. demands that the P.A. carry out in-depth reforms have been met with lip service only.

A third option is transferring control to local Fatah elements in the Gaza Strip, or alternatively bringing Mohammed Dahlan back to take control of the Strip. This would be extremely dangerous for Israel. These elements would most likely operate under the control of Hamas, which would build a model similar to the Lebanese one, in which Hezbollah is “not involved” in the state system but controls it in practice. This would be dangerous for Israel as in such a scenario, if it attempted to take action against terror networks in Gaza it would be perceived as interfering with the development  of the alternative governmental structure.

Another alternative is the deployment of international forces (Arab, European, American) in Gaza. This alternative, too, is problematic, because it will be extremely difficult for the IDF to maintain operational freedom of action with such a force on the ground. It would further cause constant friction with the governments of the countries that have deployed troops to Gaza. An international actor can only play a role in mentoring and directing the alternative civil framework in Gaza, but cannot replace it.

The only relevant alternative from Israel’s perspective, it seems, is the emergence of local elements in Gaza. Defense Minister Gallant noted this option, but without addressing the conditions that would be required for such an alternative to be put in place. It is noteworthy here that there is a public administration in Gaza (municipalities, various ministries) that is not entirely affiliated with Hamas, and from whose ranks it will be possible to find elements that can operate in the Strip.

No matter which alternative is ultimately chosen, the prerequisite for all of them is the elimination of Hamas’s military and civil capabilities. Achieving this will require an interim stage of Israeli civilian control of Gaza during which Israel expands civil responsibility in the areas under its military control. The northern Gaza Strip is suitable for this purpose.

The implementation of the proposed framework in the northern Gaza Strip will serve as an operational pilot to deny Hamas governmental capabilities, while at the same time making a concentrated military effort to demilitarize the territory. This will be done through IDF civil control first in the northern Gaza Strip, and later, depending on the circumstances, in other areas.

Some 200,000 Gazans remain in northern Gaza, including hundreds of operatives of Hamas and other organizations who constitute a fighting force and are a threat to Israeli troops. The American pier has begun working in the area and will serve as an anchor for humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip in general and the north in particular. The IDF maintains forces in the northern Gaza Strip to control the area and conduct mop-up operations. Therefore, it is possible to devise methods of action that will further destroy Hamas’s military capabilities coupled with establishing  civilian control in the area.

The IDF will assume responsibility for providing humanitarian aid to the civilian population while preventing Hamas from taking control of the aid. The actual distribution will be conducted by international aid organizations, assisted, if necessary, by the IDF. The IDF’s duty, as long as the area is a combat zone, is to provide only basic humanitarian assistance, subject to military necessity. Israeli civilian control of the area will also make it clear to the population that the era of Hamas in the Gaza Strip is over. Israel has the operational and organizational capability to exercise such civilian control and assume responsibility for managing the territory and its population.

Removing Hamas from civilian centers of power will help locate elements in the population that can contribute to the distribution of humanitarian aid. The implementation of this process will first require an understanding among decision makers in Israel, especially the defense minister and defense establishment officials, that there is no other way to find governmental alternatives without an intermediate stage in which Israel holds civil responsibility. This will also require coordination and cooperation with the United States and international organizations to channel relief efforts through the IDF’s temporary civil control.

Published in JNS, June 3, 2024.