Israel Is Stuck in Gaza's Mud | Opinion

Last weekend, Israel committed a tragic error in the field. According to Israel's own account, a precision munition launched by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) hit a designated Hamas target in the congested Gaza city of Rafah, only to see shrapnel ignite a fuel tank close to a constellation of tents where Palestinian refugees were staying. The result was a bloodbath; 45 people, including women and children, died from the large blaze. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a man loathe to admit fault, had to concede that a "tragic mishap" occurred. The global response was one of anger and disbelief.

This specific incident was a microcosm of the entire war in Gaza, which will enter its eight month in a few weeks. Ultimately, civilians pay the dearest price. The second biggest-loser is Israel, whose international reputation has taken a big hit, even if the war itself was justified after Hamas' barbaric assault on Oct. 7. Even former President Donald Trump, who gave Netanyahu pretty much everything he asked for (recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, for instance) said Israel is losing the public relations battle.

Yet the gory death toll last weekend is nothing compared to what Israel will face in Gaza over the long-term. The territory is for all intents and purposes flattened. The World Bank and the United Nations estimate that damage to Gaza's critical infrastructure is around $18.5 billion. In a separate assessment, the U.N. Development Programme says it could cost as much as $40 billion and take more than a decade to rebuild homes destroyed in the fighting. The education system is gutted, peoples' entire livelihoods have vanished, and Gaza's more than 2 million people rely on the generosity of foreign donors to survive.

All of this is made more difficult by Netanyahu's refusal to even begin deliberations on what a postwar Gaza should look like. The Israeli premier views this entire project as meaningless as long as the war continues. The amateur plan Netanyahu presented in February, which entails handing over the enclave to Israeli-picked Palestinian notables and keeping security control over Gaza indefinitely, was widely panned as an unserious proposal. And it was; no Palestinian, not even one who despises Hamas, would risk their credibility serving as Israel's de-facto civil administrator, particularly when Hamas will be ready to target anyone who works with Israel in any capacity.

Netanyahu's propensity to ignore the postwar situation got on the Biden administration's nerves a long time ago, but senior U.S. officials are speaking about it more pointedly. Israel has put itself "on the trajectory, potentially, to inherit an insurgency with many armed Hamas left or, if it leaves, a vacuum filled by chaos, filled by anarchy, and probably refilled by Hamas," Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on May 12. Although he was more diplomatic during a White House press briefing last week, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stressed the need for Israel to plan for the day after the war ends, which means finding a viable, non-Hamas entity that can govern Gaza.

The Americans are hardly the only ones with deep concerns about where this is going. Netanyahu's national unity war cabinet was never particularly unified to begin with—it's essentially the Israeli equivalent of Biden, House Speaker Mike Jonson, and Senator Bernie Sanders sitting in the same room and making war policy together—but the postwar Gaza issue is tearing it apart.

This month, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant sought to put distance between himself and his boss, Netanyahu, lest anybody was under the impression that the two held identical positions. Gallant in effect blamed Netanyahu for stymying debate on Israel's Gaza policy over the long-term, warning that under no circumstances would he support an Israeli military administration in the enclave. Benny Gantz, leader of the opposition, a former defense minister and a former IDF chief of staff, took Gallant's lead and gave Netanyahu until June 8 to adopt his own six-point plan for Gaza or else he would bolt the government. Netanyahu dismissed Gantz's ultimatum shortly thereafter.

If Netanyahu is troubled by any of this, he hasn't shown it. He seems perfectly content with dawdling, avoiding any hard discussions that could accelerate the collapse of his coalition (Netanyahu and his Likud Party would still hold a majority if Gantz left) and hoping Hamas' defeat will produce some sort of magical outcome.

In reality, Israel is left with a morass in Gaza and a narrow list of options—none of them particularly good. Israel could declare mission accomplishment after its offensive in Rafah and pull out. It could hand Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority (PA) after a nearly 18-year absence. Or it could keep its troops in Gaza for the foreseeable future, in effect occupying the territory.

The first would likely translate into a Hamas resurgence or total anarchy, forcing the IDF to continue with its perpetual "mowing the grass" strategy. The second would be the least bad option on the list, yet Netanyahu has ruled out bringing the PA back to Gaza. The third would mean perpetual counterinsurgency operations against hostile armed groups who would like nothing more than to make the IDF's job a living nightmare.

For Israel, ultimately there is no happy ending to this story.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.