Israel Shouldn’t Rush into an Agreement with Hamas

There have been several reports in recent weeks that Jerusalem is on the verge of reaching a long-term ceasefire deal with the terrorist group governing the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, Gazan terrorists fired a rocket at Israel on Sunday, which landed in an open field, causing no injuries. The IDF responded with an airstrike on a Hamas military position. Michael Milstein comments on the situation:

With no strategic alternative, such as the Palestinian Authority’s [taking] control of the besieged enclave . . . or a military takeover by Israel, a long-term understanding over Gaza is an option that must be considered. But in recent months, what has been transpiring on the ground is far from the hoped-for strategic long-term understanding.

It is unclear whether Hamas is prepared for such an agreement, and Israel, which is once again on the cusp of a national election, is unable to make decisions of a strategic nature. Officials in Jerusalem are trying to show they are making progress in the talks, whether motivated by political considerations or by security concerns such as the need to concentrate efforts on the northern front and Iran.

But haste, in this case, may push back three key issues that must be included in any real agreement: Hamas must agree to end its military actions, including those on the West Bank; Hamas must assume complete control of all rogue factions in the Gaza Strip; the bodies of two fallen Israeli soldiers and two Israeli civilians believed held by Hamas in Gaza must be released.

In recent months, Hamas has created a public perception that it is in line with Israel’s efforts to reach a long-term understanding and to combat the rogue factions destabilizing the Strip. . . . Until the key issues are agreed upon, [however], Israel’s government should not claim progress is being made toward any long-term agreement.

Read more at Ynet

More about: Gaza Strip, Hamas, Israeli Security

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF