Israeli researcher: Hamas's steadfastness leads us to a long war of attrition that puts us between two options

An Israeli researcher said that the continued steadfastness of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the Gaza Strip, and its preservation of its basic capabilities in the face of the Israeli army’s strikes, leads to a long war of attrition that will place Israeli decision-makers between two options: reaching a painful deal, or continuing the conflict without a clear resolution, which could constitute a new disaster for Israel.

The head of the Forum for Palestinian Studies at the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, Michael Milstein, considered in an article in Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper today, Sunday, that “after the events of October 7, 2023, Israel did not adopt a more realistic approach towards Gaza, but rather relied on new, ill-considered perceptions.”

The researcher pointed out the contrast between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's policy, which is based on using force to achieve a "complete victory" against Hamas without a clear plan, and the army's strategy, which is based on directing limited strikes.

The Israeli researcher stressed that what he called the “October 7 shock” came as a result of the Israeli governments having a wrong perception of the situation in Gaza. He said, “This shock did not push decision-makers in Tel Aviv to learn from previous mistakes. What is striking is that these new perceptions come from the same parties that were responsible for the perceptions that collapsed last October.”

He added that Netanyahu, at the political level, is following an approach based on several basic assumptions, namely the continuous progress towards a “complete victory,” with the ultimate goal of destroying the military and political capabilities of Hamas. This policy is based on the idea that more force will lead to concessions from Hamas, especially on the issue of the Philadelphi Corridor, which is considered an obstacle to reaching a deal, according to the researcher.

He described this approach as “trying to appear ‘realistic’, and expecting gradual achievements that will eventually lead to a decisive outcome, ‘including the possibility of establishing a governmental alternative to Hamas in Gaza that is acceptable to Israel and suitable for the local population, with the possibility of stimulating a radical change in thinking and values among Palestinians in the long term’,” but the researcher considered that this approach was not supported by a clear plan.

Milstein discussed the opposite hypothesis, the army's hypothesis that Hamas can be defeated through a series of strikes, without the need to take full control of Gaza, and according to which the Israeli army withdrew from the areas it took control of at the beginning of the fighting, especially the northern part of the Strip.

But he said, "Current and former American generals have pointed out that this doctrine is wrong, as it is not possible to defeat an enemy and change the situation on the ground without a full occupation and a long-term presence in the region."

He concluded by saying, "The common denominator between these perceptions is the absence of deep planning. How can radical change be achieved in a region where Hamas is still a major player, by controlling two axes in the Strip and carrying out continuous military strikes?"

war of attrition

Milstein highlighted Hamas, explaining that it is “an ideological organization that operates according to a vision, and has succeeded in integrating into Palestinian society in Gaza. It is also likely that Hamas fighters, especially senior leaders, will choose to fight rather than accept Israel’s terms for remaining in the Gaza Strip, let alone raise the white flag or sign a surrender agreement or withdraw from Gaza.”

He added that Hamas is an organization deeply rooted in Palestinian society and adapts to changes. Despite the unprecedented blows it has suffered, it still maintains its basic military capabilities and is gradually rebuilding itself.

He concluded that "more force will not lead to Hamas's surrender, but rather to a war of attrition in which the organization will remain weak but able to survive," he said.

He stressed that "in the absence of any intention to take full control of Gaza, and the absence of a clear explanation of how current policies will lead to the collapse of Hamas and the release of prisoners, it becomes necessary to take the deal option, even if its costs are painful, because it is better than a long-term war of attrition."

But the Israeli researcher was keen at the end to emphasize that "reaching an agreement is not the end of the war, but rather just the end of the first round of a long battle," as he put it.

He said, "It is essential that this battle is not led by those whose visions collapsed on October 7, because their continued management of the current battle will not be a 'historical correction', but rather an entry into a strategic trap that could lead to a major catastrophe."

Source: Yedioth Ahronoth