Israel Can Win the War, But At What Cost?

Israel Can Win, But at Too High a Price

As we approach the one-year mark in two months since the October 7 attacks on Israel, the aftermath continues to resonate through the region. Following the Hamas assault, Israel launched Operation Iron Swords, aiming to dismantle Hamas in Gaza. Over the past year, Israel's campaign has expanded, targeting multiple locations across the Middle East. Despite the significant scrutiny from analysts and observers questioning Israel's strategic longevity in this conflict, a deeper analysis reveals a complex reality. Yes, Israel can win this war, but at what cost?

Israel's engagement with Gaza initially focused on weakening and dismantling Hamas's rocket capabilities. In 2014, Operation Protective Edge aimed to neutralise tunnels and missile threats. While it was partially successful, Hamas soon rebounded. This time, Operation Iron Swords represents a more aggressive approach, aiming for a substantial dismantling of Hamas. This shift in operational character marks a significant change in Israel's military strategy, highlighting a move from limited offensives to a full-scale attempt to eradicate Hamas from Gaza.

Mounting Criticism

Criticism has been widespread. Analysts and top Israeli officials have questioned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy. Media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, have speculated on Israel's potential to lose this war. Analysts like Jon B. Alterman highlight two main concerns: Hamas's survivability and tactics, and Israel's regional pressures and future plans for Gaza. Critics argue that Israel cannot completely eradicate Hamas, as the group's ideology persists, posing a risk of endless conflict.

The criticism points to historical parallels, such as the U.S. experience in Vietnam, suggesting that Israel might similarly find itself mired in a protracted and costly conflict. Additi

Israel Can Win, But at Too High a Price

As we approach the one-year mark in two months since the October 7 attacks on Israel, the aftermath continues to resonate through the region. Following the Hamas assault, Israel launched Operation Iron Swords, aiming to dismantle Hamas in Gaza. Over the past year, Israel's campaign has expanded, targeting multiple locations across the Middle East. Despite the significant scrutiny from analysts and observers questioning Israel's strategic longevity in this conflict, a deeper analysis reveals a complex reality. Yes, Israel can win this war, but at what cost?

Israel's engagement with Gaza initially focused on weakening and dismantling Hamas's rocket capabilities. In 2014, Operation Protective Edge aimed to neutralise tunnels and missile threats. While it was partially successful, Hamas soon rebounded. This time, Operation Iron Swords represents a more aggressive approach, aiming for a substantial dismantling of Hamas. This shift in operational character marks a significant change in Israel's military strategy, highlighting a move from limited offensives to a full-scale attempt to eradicate Hamas from Gaza.

Mounting Criticism

Criticism has been widespread. Analysts and top Israeli officials have questioned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's strategy. Media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, have speculated on Israel's potential to lose this war. Analysts like Jon B. Alterman highlight two main concerns: Hamas's survivability and tactics, and Israel's regional pressures and future plans for Gaza. Critics argue that Israel cannot completely eradicate Hamas, as the group's ideology persists, posing a risk of endless conflict.

The criticism points to historical parallels, such as the U.S. experience in Vietnam, suggesting that Israel might similarly find itself mired in a protracted and costly conflict. Additionally, international legal judgments and global criticism have put pressure on Israel's credibility and its alliances. The criticism is well-founded, considering the historical context of protracted conflicts and the challenges of completely eradicating deeply entrenched ideologies.

If the U.S. could exhaust itself in the jungles of Vietnam, why not Israel in the dense urban landscape of Gaza?

Prussian General Carl Von Clausewitz noted, “Only the element of chance is needed to make war a gamble, and that element is never absent.” This often-overlooked element underscores many key arguments why Israel can still achieve its objectives, albeit at a high price.

Internal Fractures within Hamas

Hamas is internally fractured, relying on hostage-taking and human shields as strategic tools. Israel's ability to adapt and recalibrate its offensives helps maintain pressure on Hamas, avoiding strategic exhaustion. Former Israeli PM Golda Meir's words resonate here:

“If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we'd rather be alive and have the bad image.”

This quote encapsulates Israel's willingness to endure international condemnation to ensure its survival and security.

Israel’s resolve to withstand international uproar has been evident. Despite increasing opposition and loss of credibility, Israel has managed to maintain its strategic partnerships, particularly with the United States. The deep-seated and well-cultivated relations between Israel and the U.S. have provided a shield against potential sanctions, allowing Israel to continue its military operations with significant international backing.

Israel's historical experience in multi-front conflicts, such as the 1967 war, showcases its ability to handle simultaneous threats. Current challenges from groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis are significant but manageable. While these groups have launched strikes, Israel's calculated responses and retaliatory measures indicate a strategic depth in handling multiple adversaries. The 1967 war serves as a testament to Israel’s capability to fight on multiple fronts and emerge victorious. The present situation, though complex, is not unprecedented for Israel.

The present situation where Israel calculatingly swept the region by calibrating its offensives, especially in Rafah, has severely weakened Hamas. The challenge lies with the other two fronts, Houthis and Hezbollah. Even these threats, while significant, are quite manageable. Hezbollah suffers from strategic anxiety and desperation to hit Israel, similarly to the case with the Houthis. Both groups are on the brink of war with Israel, with Hezbollah recently carrying out strikes in the Golan Heights. However, Israel’s war cabinet has approved retaliatory measures, indicating a calculated and strategic response.

Ideological Battle & Hostage Crisis

The ideological struggle against Hamas is akin to the fight against Al-Qaeda. While the ideology may persist, its operational capabilities can be significantly weakened. The death of Hamas leaders and the disruption of their operations are steps toward diminishing their influence. Though Iran's support to Hamas complicates the scenario, Israel's continued strategic strikes aim to erode Hamas's capacity to regroup and re-establish control.

The case of Al-Qaeda serves as a precedent. While Al-Qaeda's ideology remains fluid and intact among its followers, its capabilities have been significantly diminished. Similarly, the goal with Hamas is to weaken its operational capabilities to such an extent that it can no longer pose a significant threat to Israel. This involves continuous strategic strikes and a relentless effort to cut off Hamas's resources and support networks.

The hostage situation, involving 120 captives, predominantly women, significantly constrains Israel's military actions. Israel's three non-negotiable demands in negotiations—maximising the number of living hostages, preventing the return of militants, and stopping arms smuggling from Egypt—are designed to weaken Hamas further.

This approach reveals the high cost and complexity of Israel's war efforts. The hostage conundrum forces Israel to carefully consider its military strategies, often opting for more measured and calculated responses to avoid further endangering the hostages. In hostage negotiations, Israel has remained assertive, making it clear that certain demands are non-negotiable. These demands aim not only to secure the release of hostages but also to weaken Hamas’s hold on Gaza. 

The Price of Victory

While Israel has maintained control over the situation in Gaza, the cost of victory is steep. Strategic patience, recalibration, and operational realities help Israel maintain its edge, but these come at the expense of massive human suffering, prolonged conflict and international criticism. The real question remains: at what cost does victory come? As history teaches us, winning the battle may not equate to winning the war, especially when the stakes involve human lives and enduring peace.

Israel's situation reflects a delicate balance between military success and the broader implications of prolonged warfare. The future remains uncertain, and the ongoing conflict in Gaza is a stark reminder of the high price of war, both for those who fight it and for those who live in its shadow. The heavy toll on civilian lives, the disruption of everyday life, and the constant state of fear and uncertainty weigh heavily on the region.

The human cost of the conflict is staggering. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost, families torn apart, and communities shattered. The relentless bombings and ground offensives have left Gaza in ruins, with its infrastructure decimated and its people in dire need of humanitarian assistance. The international community has voiced concerns over the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza, calling for an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The human cost of the conflict cannot be understated. The loss of innocent lives, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the psychological trauma inflicted on the population are profound. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached unprecedented levels, with international aid organisations struggling to provide the necessary support to the affected population. The ongoing conflict has created a generation of individuals who have known nothing but war, further complicating efforts for future peace and reconciliation.

International Repercussions

Israel's actions have not only drawn criticism from international human rights organisations but have also strained its diplomatic relations with key allies. The United Nations and various countries have condemned the disproportionate use of force and the targeting of civilian areas. Sanctions and calls for boycotts have increased, putting additional pressure on Israel's economy and political standing on the global stage.

The international community has been vocal in its condemnation of Israel's actions, with many calling for immediate ceasefires and a return to peace talks. The ongoing conflict has strained Israel's diplomatic relations, particularly with European countries and other traditional allies. Economic sanctions and calls for boycotts have further complicated Israel's position, creating additional pressure on its already strained resources.

The long-term implications of the war are huge. The cycle of violence perpetuates a deep-seated animosity between Israelis and Palestinians, making the prospects for peace ever more elusive. The continued instability in the region has far-reaching consequences, affecting not just the immediate parties involved but also the broader Middle East and international relations.

While Israel's military campaign may achieve tactical victories, the broader question remains: at what cost? The loss of innocent lives, the destruction of communities, and the erosion of international support paint a grim picture. The path to lasting peace requires more than military might; it demands a commitment to dialogue, understanding, and addressing the root causes of the conflict.

Dive deeper with The Probe. For thoughtful analysis and in-depth stories directly to your phone, join our WhatsApp channel. Click and Connect with us Today: [WhatsApp Channel Link] 🔗

At The Probe, our commitment to social impact journalism is at the core of everything we do. Funded by well-meaning individuals from the public, our aim is to drive positive social change and make a real-world impact through the stories we report. 

If you wish to support us, please visit our Truth Brigade page and contribute to a cause that resonates with you the most. It is through your support that we have been able to keep the flame of our journalism alive in these difficult times. Click link to support us to make a difference: https://theprobe.in/truth-brigade