Wars sow destruction and suffering. Gaza, too, has tragedies that attract the attention of international media and many whose hearts are moved by the sight of Gazans in distress. People are killed in Gaza, many of them Hamas terrorists. A significant number of civilian casualties are due to Hamas’s use of them as human shields.
There are also difficulties in operating medical services. A huge number of Gazans leave their homes according to IDF instructions to areas outside the range of combat. Subsequently, some of their homes are destroyed due to the operational needs of conducting the war, especially since weapons and entrances to shafts leading to Hamas’s elaborate tunnel network are found in almost every house.
Apparently there are also pockets of hunger, because of the problems with distributing food that reaches the Strip. Moreover, a large part of the humanitarian aid is looted by Hamas to feed its operatives, and to sell the remainder at inflated prices to finance salaries and other needs of the terrorist organization. Food is also a means to recruit new operatives.
Hamas behaves similarly to warlords in disaster-stricken areas. Those armed with guns take over the humanitarian aid and eat well. Hamas, like its Islamist or totalitarian counterparts, is willing to sacrifice its own people for attaining maximalist political objectives.
The world sees the suffering of Gazans, forgetting that the war started with Hamas acts of horror on October 7. Compassion is directed toward Gazans who are indeed unfortunate, but most of them chose Hamas in democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority in 2006 (no elections have been held since).
DESPITE HAMAS’S tyrannical rule, no significant signs of rebellion from Gazans are detected. Actually, all polls over the years testify to the great popularity of the terrorist group. The inevitable conclusion is that Hamas and Gaza residents bear the moral responsibility for the tragedy in Gaza. Its residents have supported the murderous organization, and some of them participated joyfully in the atrocities initiating the war.
Operation Swords of Iron is mainly intended to prevent additional suffering for the Israeli population that has been Hamas’s target. Defending the population is a state’s paramount moral obligation. This requires destroying Hamas’s military capabilities. Israel cannot prevent Palestinian adulation for Hamas, but it has the power to debilitate the terrorist organization’s capacity for harm.
Therefore, Israel focuses on crushing Hamas while trying to alleviate as much as possible the suffering of the non-involved in combat. This priority sometimes justifies steps that harm the Gazans’ quality of life.
Leaving Hamas armed in Gaza will not only lead to the continuation of the threat to Israel’s residents, but the survival of Hamas rule is a victory for the most extreme elements acting against Israel. It strengthens those resisting the very existence of a Jewish state – the advocates of the Muqawama (resistance – the “M” in Hamas, an acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement”). It is a victory for the Islamists, especially significant after the damage Iran suffered to its nuclear project.
WHILE MOST states call for Hamas’s disarmament and the return of all hostages as part of a settlement to end the war, in practice they expect Israel to stop the war even without these conditions being met, ostensibly due to their concern for Gaza’s population. They even adopt hostile steps against Israel if it does not act as they expect it to. This policy hardens Hamas’s approach in negotiations and strategically helps keep the terrorist group in Gaza. Its survival poses a danger not only to neighbors in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean, but to the entire Western world.
All those who rightly demand demilitarization of the Gaza Strip certainly understand that Hamas will not disarm voluntarily, similar to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yet only Israel is willing to sacrifice soldiers to see Hamas surrendering its weapons. Part of the world, in its foolishness or hypocrisy, is interfering with Israel’s intention to finish the job.
Focusing on Gazan suffering
Focusing on the suffering of Gazans is understandable, but ignores an important implication: the educational function of tragedies and pain. A small child learns in many cases not to touch open fire through personal, painful experience. This is also true of nations. Germany suffered severe defeats in two world wars and only afterwards changed its militaristic character and abandoned dreams of expansion. Only after the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, did Japan become less belligerent.
Yet, the Palestinians’ sensitivity to pain is small. They remember their own tragedies – the Nakba and the Naksa (1948 “catastrophe” and 1967 “setback”) – but it is not at all clear that they have given up on the dream of eliminating the State of Israel.
The Palestinians’ learning curve regarding Israel is not impressive. Some attribute the relative quiet in Judea and Samaria to the memory of the price the West Bankers paid during Operation Defensive Shield that began in 2002 but lasted at least three years. Gaza did not receive similar treatment – and perhaps this is one factor explaining the extremism prevalent among Gazans toward Israel.
PERHAPS THE price Gaza residents are paying for the war, started by their representative Hamas, might induce change in Palestinians’ learning curve. A new tragedy in the Sisyphean confrontation against Israel might perhaps moderate Palestinian aspirations. The very discourse, following the war, about emigration of Gazans for the purpose of building a “Riviera” might instill some pragmatism into a maximalist political culture.
Indeed, Gaza has been paying a heavy price. This is of course also useful for Israeli deterrence. More people in the region understand that an attack against Israel could be costly. Meanwhile, most of Israeli society is at peace with the morality of the road that has been taken.
The debates revolve around priorities: victory or hostages. Even Hamas’s successful “starvation campaign” has not cracked public trust in the IDF’s maintenance of moral conduct. Continuing the war involves costs in the international arena whose understanding of the complexities of the conflict with the Palestinians is limited and biased against Israel.
Ultimately, Israel lives in the Middle East, a conflict-ridden region. The use of military force is part of the toolkit of all political leaders, and unlike in Europe, it receives understanding and appreciation. While Israel has achieved many accomplishments since October 7, it should remember that it is a small country. It is strong, but its freedom of action is not unlimited.
The writer is head of the Program for Strategy, Diplomacy and Security at the Shalem Academic Center and a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS).