The Gaza War has been ongoing for over three months now, resulting in more than 23,000 Palestinian casualties, while the Israeli military has experienced comparatively fewer losses. The current focal point of the conflict is primarily in southern Gaza, with decreased intensity in the north, where the Israeli army claims to have eradicated Hamas’s military infrastructure. Hezbollah continues to launch controlled missile attacks from Lebanon into Israeli territory, prompting retaliatory responses. The prospect of a ceasefire remains uncertain, and efforts by European and regional countries to mediate have not produced results, possibly due to the United States’ disapproval.
In light of these circumstances, the question arises: Does the situation align with Israel’s desired outcome?
In examining this query, the following aspects will be taken into account:
1: The War Has Become Erosive
The conflict is experiencing a corrosive effect that deviates from Israel’s strategic goals and principles. When evaluating military prowess, the expectation would be for Israel to swiftly dismantle Hamas’s control over the Gaza Strip. In previous major wars, Israel successfully achieved its objectives by rapidly neutralizing adversaries. For instance, in the 1967 ‘Six-Day War,’ Israel crippled the air forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan within 24 hours, seizing parts of their territories. Despite facing an Israeli blockade since 2007, turning Gaza into an ‘open-air prison,’ Hamas remains in power. Even with diplomatic routes blocked and past discreet support dwindling, Israel continues to receive military assistance from Washington. The erosion of the conflict is exacerbated by the unconventional nature of confronting an armed group rather than a government, making it challenging to declare a clear winner and imbuing the conflict with guerrilla characteristics.
2: The United States is worried
Israel is a dominant regional power with the ability to defend itself against adversaries, especially groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. However, from October 7th until now, it has benefited from U.S. military support. The Biden administration stationed two aircraft carriers in the Middle East to support Israel, issuing warnings to other countries and groups, particularly Iran and Hezbollah, to remain neutral. President Biden even proposed a budget of $106 billion for continued support to Tel Aviv and Kyiv, although it was not approved by Congress. In December of last year, the Biden administration twice provided financial and military support to Israel without obtaining congressional approval, citing emergency circumstances.
While the Israeli army possesses advanced military equipment in the region, the crucial factor is its conflict with Hamas, a group in need of assistance from other countries and groups. Emergency aid without congressional approval is not unprecedented but is rare, indicating that Washington perceives Tel Aviv to be in an unfavorable situation.
Efforts by Washington to prevent the escalation of the war also indicate Israel’s unfavorable situation. Considering the erosion of the Gaza War, the U.S. has perceived that Tel Aviv may not be capable of facing simultaneous conflicts on multiple fronts. Therefore, it is striving to prevent the opening of a new front against Israel. Antony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, who has traveled to the Middle East four times from October 7th until now, aims at preventing the opening of a new front, not necessarily achieving a ceasefire. This is because the U.S. wants Israel to remain focused in Gaza to achieve the destruction of Hamas.
3- Temporary Ceasefire Interpreted as Weakness
The seven-day temporary ceasefire, brokered with the mediation of Qatar, Egypt, and the United States, is also interpreted as Israel’s inability to destroy Hamas. This interpretation arises from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphatically stating that there would be no ceasefire unless all hostages were freed. However, not only did this condition go unmet, but Hamas, in exchange for the release of 50 Israelis, freed 150 Palestinians. The act of signing the ceasefire agreement with Hamas indicates that the group still holds sway over Gaza, and Israel has found no solution other than ignoring its demands. The objectives set by the Netanyahu government have not been fulfilled to date, including the release of hostages, the destruction of Hamas, and the demilitarization of Gaza. Not only have these objectives gone unmet, but the presence of hostages has compelled the Netanyahu government to once again agree to a ceasefire with Hamas. This, too, will be interpreted as a sign of weakness.
Recent reports suggest that Qatar has presented a plan, based on which the Israeli army would withdraw from the Gaza Strip, and hostages would be released gradually in several phases with intervals. However, it is unclear whether this plan is under consideration or has been rejected by the Israeli cabinet.
4- Israel’s credibility has been compromised by significant civilian casualties
So far, over 23,000 Palestinians, including women and children, have been killed as a result of aerial and ground attacks by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip. A significant number of casualties have also occurred in the southwestern border region, an area where Israel does not perceive a significant threat and aims to make it as safe as possible, akin to Gaza. Israel is often described as a democratic government in the region, receiving support from the Western world under this label. This is why Netanyahu refers to the Israeli army as the ‘most ethical’ army in the world. When Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the President of Turkey, compared Israel’s actions in Gaza to what Hitler did against the Jews, Netanyahu responded vehemently: ‘The Israeli army is the most ethical army in the world and is fighting against the most heinous and ruthless terrorist organization in the world, which Erdogan praises and provides refuge to its top officials.’
The significant civilian casualties have tarnished Israel’s standing in the international community. Even Western European governments, which initially strongly supported Tel Aviv, are now expressing doubts. Currently, only the United States is making efforts not to conceal its support for Israel, seemingly emphasizing attention to the protection of the lives of civilians. For instance, the South African government has filed a complaint in the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of ‘genocide,’ an issue that carries serious implications. The Hague court held its first session on Thursday, January 11th, to examine South Africa’s complaint, which is not good news for the Netanyahu government. While Israel is accused of genocide, Jews around the world still bear the scars of persecution and mass slaughter, and Tel Aviv considers itself their representative. Normally, a victim of a massacre should not be accused of massacring others.
5– Domestic Dissatisfaction has Resurfaced
Even before the October 7th attack, Israel witnessed public protests. However, afterward, a kind of relative unity was established between the government and opposition forces, leading to a subsiding of the protests. Although they are now resurfacing. For example, in recent days, Israeli streets have seen the presence of people demanding elections and the formation of a new government, highlighting the Netanyahu government’s inability to free hostages and destroy Hamas. Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition movement, has once again stated that the Netanyahu government is unmatched in irresponsibility. While the prevailing expectation is that all forces in Israel should unite to defeat Hamas, rather than seek a change of government.
6- Assassination of Hamas Leaders Interpreted as Weakness
While the assassination of Hamas leaders could be perceived as an achievement for Israel, it is also interpreted as a sign of weakness. The prevailing assumption is that Netanyahu’s government aims to divert attention from its unfulfilled expectations in Gaza. The assassination of Hamas leaders has not even received approval from the United States, as it may escalate the conflict in the region. The U.S. may agree with the assassination of Hamas leaders, but under normal circumstances and within Palestinian territories, not in the current tense situation and other countries’ territories. For example, the Lebanese government, in response to the assassination of Saleh al-Arouri, a political deputy of Hamas, may allow Hezbollah more leeway to act against Israel’s interests. Similarly, Syria, which has been silent since October 7th, might react to the assassination of Iranian military personnel on its soil by Israel. If Hamas leaders, currently based in Qatar and Turkey, become targets of Israel, it is evident that Netanyahu’s government would incur more losses. This is why Heiko Maas, the German Foreign Minister, stated during his Middle East trip, ‘We all feel that the scenario of assassinations should not continue. Human tragedy must come to an end, and the region must break out of the eternal cycle of violence.’ Also, UN special reporters, in a joint statement, have termed the assassination of al-Arouri by Israel as ‘extrajudicial execution’ and a ‘violation of Lebanon’s territorial integrity.’
Despite Israel’s assertion that it can dismantle Hamas and achieve its predetermined objectives in Gaza, the three months and a few days of conflict have revealed the complexity of this task. The Netanyahu government has consistently acknowledged the potential for significant losses in this prolonged war.