-4

As I write this question, there's a famine going on in Gaza as a result of the Israel vs. Hamas 2023-2024 war. As far as I'm aware, Israel has surrounded Hamas, but has not launched a final offensive to win the war because of the dire humanitarian situation (which Israel's allies are pressuring Israel about). The same dire humanitarian situation has led many countries to argue that there should be a ceasefire to allow food and vital supplies in, which Israel has so far refused to allow in sufficient quantities.

Why isn't the dire humanitarian situation interpreted as "therefore we need to win quickly" by Israel or its allies? Presumably Israel would be able to freely allow food and vital supplies into Gaza after they win. Granted any Israeli offensive would surely be very dangerous for non-combatants and exacerbate the dire humanitarian situation, but if it's a few days of heavy combat vs. weeks and months of famine, it's not obvious to me that the former isn't preferable. I've not seen this directly addressed in the media, e.g. according to this article:

"What we don't want to see is a major ground operation because we don't see how that can be done without doing terrible harm to civilians," [US Secretary of State] Blinken said in the interview Wednesday with Al Hadath television.

But the Israeli blockade is presumably already doing major harm to civilians, and Blinken doesn't argue that starvation is less dangerous than a major ground operation.

I suspect the reason is because at least one of the assumptions in this question are incorrect, in which case the question is: which?

Improve this question
8
  • 2
    VTC. There are just too many opinions and assumptions wrapped in this Q and its prospective answers. For one, the area of greatest risk is in the North right now, which was the first area cleared by the IDF. For another, there is the assumption that a heroic push could quickly clear the rest, on an operation that is nearing its 6th month. I don't see any clear military logic to these assumptions. Others will have different opinions, ranging from "horrible idea" to "great idea". There are some ways it might work, but many it likely wouldn't and no objective to way decide which is likelier
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Mar 22 at 6:03
  • 6
    Quote: "Presumably Israel would be able to freely allow food and vital supplies into Gaza after they win." Why would you think that? According to the IDF they already control the north of Gaza and that is where the food situation is most dire.
    – quarague
    Commented Mar 22 at 6:59
  • @quarague That's one of the two obvious possible explanations to me (the other is that Israel does not expect to defeat Hamas in Rafa quickly). If you have sources that can prove what you just said, that'd be an answer.
    – Allure
    Commented Mar 22 at 7:02
  • It just don't seem likely that a quick win is possible so that does not sound like a realistic scenarion ATM.
    – alamar
    Commented Mar 22 at 8:32
  • I didn't vote to close because of a concern of push. I voted to close as opinion-based, because there is no objective way to decide whether or not this would be a good idea. I suspect the answer has evolved in time: a 3 week "quick push" in December may have worked out better than the current situation, before peoples' bodies and supplies were exhausted. But a 3 week "time out on aid to finish", now, would arrive precisely at the time where Gazans just really need food asap. I also suspect that the potential for this to go catastrophically wrong now, cuz the food situation, is very high.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Mar 26 at 20:18

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
8

Actually it is by some. Bennett put it precisely that way: the sooner Hamas is totally defeated, the sooner Gazans will have food like before.

I guess the issue is with how credible that it given that the IDF practically declared victory over Hamas in Northern Gaza in early January, but the IPC now says that's where the famine is. The area was left with practically no trucks going in for over a month (Feb) etc., unlike southern Gaza.

enter image description here

Improve this answer
7
  • Huh. The maps I've seen suggest that Northern Gaza isn't fully under Israeli control, e.g. bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20415675
    – Allure
    Commented Mar 22 at 7:15
  • @Allure: in your link, the BBC changed the ISW label of "clearing operations" to just "operations". Clearing operations in military jargon means only isolated stragglers are left from the enemy. Of course, we don't know how long that's going to take. Netanyahu said the IDF needs that kind of presence in Gaza for the next 10 years.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Mar 22 at 7:22
  • @Allure: see also this dispute between Israel's gov't and the US on what the next steps should be. Israelis want to move into Rafah ASAP basically, where the last "4 battalions" of Hamas are reported "out of an initial 24". The US says Israel needs to stabilize in the north.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Mar 22 at 7:35
  • According to wsj.com/world/middle-east/…, Chatham House analyst Yossi Mekelberg says Israel declared premature victories in Gaza City & Khan Younis, and Hamas fighters are re-emerging and using guerrilla tactics. Apparently Yoav Gallant has also said that "the war would enter a prolonged phase of raids against remaining points of resistance in northern Gaza". So it seems like Northern Gaza isn't fully under Israeli control.
    – Allure
    Commented Mar 25 at 5:30
  • @Allure: it's partly true. If you check out some IDF videos though, it's down to hunting down a guy or two hiding in the rubbled houses. reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1bmpolp/… Anyway, if you that's a reason not to let the rest eat... (Hamas hasn't posted any of their red-triangle-shooting-RPG-at-tank-for-no-effect videos in a while, which they last did some months ago.)
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Mar 25 at 8:05
6

The way I understand it, Israel has mutually incompatible policy goals:

  • They want the military defeat of Hamas.
  • They do not want to become a real occupying power, with all the obligations (and rights) that brings.

And many others (both supporters of Israel and Palestine) do not want Israel to become a real occupying power, either, because that is not seen as a sustainable situation.

Consider the situation in Germany at the end of WWII. The Allies militarily defeated the German forces, detained both actual and presumed fighters in POW camps, put criminals on trial, and started the feeding of the population and the organization of a new German administration and police (or rather four of them, but that is not the point here). After a few years this transitioned to a situation where the (two) German administrations could run their domestic matters, and more years passed before the (two) German states had their own foreign and military policy.

Improve this answer
8
  • Hmm, that makes me wonder if Israel has said something about what they envision postwar Gaza will be like. Do you know if Israel has said something about who governs Gaza after (if) they wipe Hamas out?
    – Allure
    Commented Mar 22 at 6:10
  • 1
    @Allure: That could be difficult to really determine, but even if they had a planned "Sucession plan" for Gaza...I'd add a consideration that - although Israel may have plans for who would govern Gaza after "wiping out Hamas", actually ensuring that it goes the German States way versus, say, the Afghanistan way post withdrawal from occupying the location, can be difficult. They could be an occupying power, setup a new administration, leave, and then find Hamas returning, rebuilding and shows up again.
    – Alexander The 1st
    Commented Mar 22 at 6:15
  • @AlexanderThe1st well, I'm only asking whether they have such plans (and if so what they are); not whether such plans will work.
    – Allure
    Commented Mar 22 at 6:20
  • 1
    @Allure: My understanding is that they don't have a plan for who else would be governing the area, in part because they want to occupy the area without being an real occupying power - but also because of that consideration, it's hard to decide what an occupation with a governing entity that isn't them looks like.
    – Alexander The 1st
    Commented Mar 22 at 6:29
  • 3
    @Allure Israel didn't present any detailed plan for postwar Gaza (no one had any good somewhat realistic ideas so far). The make some statements that Israel should retain control but that Palestinians should have the responsibility. This is also mutually incompatible.
    – quarague
    Commented Mar 22 at 7:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .