Whatever Joe Biden told Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has no better option than to strike at Hamas’s redoubt in the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, argues Richard Kemp:

Many supposed military experts say Israel should not mount an offensive in Rafah. I have not heard any of them put forward a single viable alternative. The White House is apparently recommending a strategy based on pinpoint, clinical strikes into the city, targeting Hamas leaders. Its template seems to be U.S. special-forces operations in Afghanistan, and we all know how that ultimately worked out: the Taliban survived, gained strength, and eventually re-conquered the country.

Much of the estimated 1.4 million population of Rafah will have to be evacuated before the IDF begins a major offensive—and the IDF has planned for this. It is worth noting that the international community, including the UN, though always eager to parade its humanitarian concerns, has been deliberately frustrating Israeli plans for that. Even before the ground war began, Israel identified al-Mawasi, a sixteen-square-kilometer coastal area of southwest Gaza, as a humanitarian area. . . . But the UN and other aid agencies refused to establish this safe zone which could have been done with the assistance of Egypt, saving many lives. . . . It is hard to escape the conclusion that the UN and other players would prefer to see Israel fail in Gaza than to save human life.

There is another reason why Israel must achieve total victory in Gaza. The defeat of Hamas may well reduce the need for a major war in Lebanon if Hizballah is deterred by the destruction of its fellow Iranian proxies in Gaza—for the time being at least. And if the West doesn’t care much about Israel’s security, a victory for Hamas in Gaza will certainly energize the global jihadist threat. Even if for no other reason, our countries should give their full backing to Israel’s operation in Rafah.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.