Israel was already at a crossroads about what to do about Gaza.
Should it push to cut a deal to return the remaining approximately 130 hostages that remain there as soon as possible – even at the high cost of not disabling Hamas – or should it hold out, even at the cost of additional risk to the hostages, while still trying to seek another partial hostage return for a temporary ceasefire deal?
The deaths of 21 soldiers, all in one attack and only a couple of weeks after another single incident in which a large number of soldiers were killed, has brought even heavier scrutiny to this dilemma. It temporarily gives those wanting a deal that returns the hostages and ends the war, even if Hamas is not dismantled, the upper hand in the debate.
Even before this incident, senior National Unity Party leaders and war cabinet members Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, Opposition head Yair Lapid, and a growing movement of hostage families have been pushing harder than ever for a deal to return all of the hostages, even if it falls short of completely dismantling Hamas.
Those in favor of this view cite a moral obligation to return Israeli civilians who were kidnapped from the South – an area not even in legal dispute, like the West Bank – regardless of the broader risk to the nation in the future. They say that the country and the IDF “failed” these civilians and must restore them to safety before any other national interest is considered.
Another argument from officials on this side of the debate is the growing number of IDF losses, as it is unclear whether Israel will achieve anything new by continuing to fight.
Top defense officials have made it clear that, to date, they were ordered by the political echelon never to fire on areas where they knew there were Israeli hostages, even if that meant letting Hamas terrorists temporarily flee.
Limited rules of engagement make destroying Hamas more challenging
If such limited rules of engagement mean that Israel cannot eliminate Hamas’s top leadership, then Israel can no longer achieve much more strategically than it already has, say those who want a hostage deal, even at a high cost.Israel has control over northern Gaza and will soon have control over central Gaza and most of Khan Yunis above the ground. What else would be left?
If that is true, then allowing the number of soldiers who die in Gaza to jump from 150 to 200 to 300, and maybe eventually 500, would be wasting hundreds of lives for no clear strategic purpose.
Watching 21 soldiers die in a single incident appears to significantly strengthen this argument and raise concerns that the number of dead IDF soldiers could multiply exponentially at this stage, when the IDF has a smaller footprint and is becoming more static in its Gaza movements.
But this should not surprise anyone.
UNTIL NOW, the IDF faced greater resistance from Hamas in an organized way. The amount of power the IDF was using and its constant maneuvering ironically meant that it was suffering fewer casualties.
In contrast, now that the IDF forces in large portions of Gaza have no obvious Hamas forces to fight, they are taking up more static defensive positions, which could pose a greater risk. In addition to the reduced offensive power, which is being transferred to southern Gaza or other fronts, this makes the soldiers much easier to pick off.
Furthermore, Gantz came out strongly on Tuesday, in lockstep with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, that the IDF must continue the war for an extended period.
Lapid did not mention slowing the war; rather, he just expressed sadness at the loss of the reservists.
Surprisingly, there were almost no loud, influential voices that tried to use the opportunity to push for a quick deal and an IDF withdrawal from Gaza.
This is not because Gantz, Lapid, and others have become more anti-deal with the loss of 21 more soldiers, something that instead supports their arguments. Rather, it is likely a temporary tactical move. Even supporters would consider it inappropriate and insensitive to use the 21 dead soldiers as an excuse to rush into a hostage situation or withdraw from Gaza at this time.
Also, it seems that right now, even the more flexible Gantz-Eisenkot terms are not acceptable to Hamas. The terrorist group not only wants any deal to end Israel’s war in Gaza; its leaders also want all IDF soldiers withdrawn and to keep some hostages as human shields for their safety going forward post-war.
The whole point of the Gantz-Eisenkot strategy is to get all of the captives home immediately so that whenever Hamas breaks whatever global ceasefire deal the sides might agree on, the captives will have been freed.
So, it seems that the deaths of the 21 soldiers will not be the tipping point that breaks Israel’s resolve to maintain the war.
However, along with the incidents a couple of weeks ago plus potential future incidents, the event of the 21 dead soldiers is likely to embolden those seeking a hostage deal to soon push harder, which could lead to a tipping point, i.e., a deal or an end to the Netanyahu-Gantz alliance shortly.