We have to put the truth on the table: There is no alternative to Israel's current strategy in Gaza. Anyone who envisions a scenario of creating a new reality based on toppling Hamas and instating the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, needs to take into account that such an endeavor would entail full Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and assuming civilian responsibility for the territory's 2 million people. It's doubtful the PA can take responsibility if it returns to Gaza under the wings of the Israeli army; and as our history in Lebanon proves, we don't have a record of success when it comes to imposing new political orders in the region.
Hamas, therefore, is the default option. To be sure, it is a murderous terrorist organization with a genetic code geared toward negating the existence of Israel and striving to undermine reality, even if it means taking extreme risks. But as crazy as it sounds, the current situation also has its advantages. The Hamas regime absolves Israel of responsibility for the fate of Gaza's downtrodden populace, and it also stymies the spread of forces more radical than even itself, which are operating in the Sinai Peninsula and are affiliated with the Islamic State group.
For nearly a decade and a half, Israel has sought to strike a balance between keeping Hamas in power and limiting its strength to mitigate the potential security threat it poses. The escalation that has characterized the past year – mass border riots, incendiary kites and explosive balloons, rocket fire at Gaza-area communities and more recently at central Israel – indicates that Hamas has assumed a far more aggressive posture.
But this doesn't mean that Israel needs to abandon its prevailing strategy, which is ultimately predicated on valid axioms. Israel would only need to modify its strategy to a certain extent, based on a willingness to ease the "blockade" on Gaza, which indeed exacerbates the economic situation and spurs Hamas to be increasingly aggressive. Israel has already decided in principle to move toward an arrangement and has been engaging in Egyptian-mediated talks. With that, it has also become increasingly apparent that an arrangement can never materialize if Israel doesn't exude a willingness to launch a comprehensive military operation in Gaza.
The catch is that Israel doesn't want a military clash and Israeli society struggles to accept losses of life. The IDF, as the people's army, has internalized this. In recent years its commanders have preferred to fight wars via remote control, mainly from the air, but this lacks the effect necessary to deter our enemies. On one hand, the Iron Dome system minimizes the cost of this chronic conflict in Gaza, and on the other, it contributes to Israeli acceptance of this prevailing reality, characterized by endless rounds of fighting.
This is exactly where Israel's leadership needs to understand the paradox: Ensuring stability and bolstering the chances for an arrangement actually depends on undermining the existing dynamic by striking a major blow. Memorial Day events, Independence Day celebrations, and the Eurovision song contest this week all render this option moot for now; and at any rate the element of surprise doesn't currently exist.
Israel, however, can certainly make preparations to strike a lethal blow against Hamas in Gaza the moment these festivities end. A painful blow of this sort wouldn't reflect any pretense that Israel believes in the illusion of reshaping the political order or regime in Gaza; but it will push Hamas, which fears for its survival and rule, toward a significant diplomatic arrangement that could possibly coincide with U.S. President Donald Trump's "deal of the century" and the economic initiatives it might possibly introduce to the region.
