Israel’s thinking about what can realistically be achieved in its war against Hamas has shifted over the past several months, as the realities of combat against an enemy hiding in a web of tunnels and deeply embedded in the civilian population have helped bring some clarity to the effort.
In the days and weeks after the deadly Hamas attack on Oct. 7, the government’s declared objective was simple: It intended to “destroy” and “eliminate” Hamas, on a path toward “total victory” in the Gaza war.
Since then, however, as the war effort has continued — with all of the humanitarian, political and military challenges we know and don’t know about — the articulation of the IDF’s military objective has been modified and is now directed toward the degradation of Hamas’ ability to continue to exert control over Gaza or pose a serious security threat to Israel.
Given that objective, how does one define “victory” in Israel’s war effort? That’s the question that is at the heart of the Rafah conundrum facing Israel, which is playing out in real time, as the world community (led by the United States) looks carefully over Israel’s shoulder and judges the necessity, intensity and result of each military move and its impact on the civilian community.
From Israel’s perspective, the degradation of Hamas includes the destruction or at least disabling of four Hamas battalions in Rafah, numbering about 15,000 men, and the elimination of several key Hamas leaders. Israel also wants to rescue the hostages who are being held in Rafah or in the tunnels beneath it.
Whether the complete elimination of Hamas can be accomplished without jeopardizing the lives of the hostages is a point of deep disagreement in Israel.
But even those in Israel who favor a forceful attack in Rafah recognize that elements of Hamas will continue to exist after the attack and will have to be dealt with through some form of counterinsurgency campaign.
Such a campaign will almost certainly be a drawn-out effort in whatever construct of “the day after” scenario actually develops in Gaza, whether through negotiation or through force.
The U.S. and many European allies recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s effort to defeat Hamas. But they worry about the safety of the close to 1.5 million civilians in the area, many of whom were directed to Rafah earlier in the war to avoid Israel’s attacks in the north.
And since everyone seems to agree that an all-out attack on Rafah will not achieve the full defeat of Hamas and will have to be followed by a counterinsurgency effort, they urge Israel to start the pinpointed, counterinsurgency attacks now, which would allow for the targeted elimination of Hamas leaders and fighters but avoid the risk of massive civilian losses from a more aggressive invasion of Rafah.
There are holes on both sides of these arguments. But each side raises legitimate concerns. These are among the issues being discussed and negotiated in Israel itself, within the White House and Congress and in an array of international diplomatic circles. There are no easy answers.
We hope someone comes up with an approach that will assure peace, stability and security for Israel and opportunity for Palestinians.