Where Can Gaza Go From Here?

New York Times

3 days ago

First and most obviously: The government of Israel needs to rush, in abundant quantities and to immediate and undeniable effect, food and medicine to the places in Gaza that desperately need them.
This is as much a matter of self-interest as it is of humanitarianism. Few things hurt Israel more than the global perception, however tendentious, that it's deliberately starving kids. Nothing helps Hamas more, either. Whatever benefits Hamas might derive from the aid pale next to the propaganda boon it has achieved through the starvation narrative — even if it's Hamas itself that bears the final responsibility for causing and perpetuating Gaza's misery.
But then what? There are three basic options.
The first is a negotiated settlement. Until just two weeks ago, the prospect of a cease-fire appeared to be tantalizingly close. Then Hamas hardened its stance. It has flatly refused to disarm until a Palestinian state is created.
It has also posted atrocity videos of two hostages, Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski, visibly starved and nearing death, which were guaranteed to spark anguish and outrage among Israelis, though the rest of the world barely seemed to notice. 'Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith,' Steve Witkoff, the American envoy, said after withdrawing from talks.
A cease-fire now lies farther out of reach. France's feckless and destructive plan to recognize a Palestinian state, along with promises from Britain and Canada to follow suit, was a guaranteed incentive for Hamas to raise the diplomatic price on Israel. What a perverse reward for the terrorist group, and a punishment for ordinary Gazans.
There are other diplomatic opportunities, most promisingly an Arab League declaration last week that condemned Oct. 7 and called for Hamas to disarm and release hostages. But that's a hortatory statement that has no teeth until Arab states like Qatar, which has hosted Hamas's leadership in luxury, exert extreme pressure on the group to come to terms. Until then, diplomacy is a winding road to nowhere.
The second option is Israel's complete reoccupation of all of Gaza. Israeli news media are reporting that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has all but settled on this course over the strong opposition of some of his own senior military commanders. This may yet be a negotiating gambit to get Hamas to ease its terms. But it's also something that the far-right ministers in Netanyahu's government have called for since the war's beginning.
Whatever the case, it's a risky and potentially catastrophic gamble. It would put the hostages at immediate risk, since their captors have been given execution orders if Israeli troops approach. It would require another round of bloody urban warfare. And it would involve Israel in a draining effort to stamp out every pocket of guerrilla warfare — a war that sooner or later would bring unbearable foreign and domestic pressure to bear on Israel. Beirut in 1982 is not an experience the Israeli government should ever want to repeat.
But there's a third option, a middle way between capitulating to Hamas's outrageous demands and lunging for another Pyrrhic victory.
Shortly after Oct. 7, I reported on a proposal from former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called a 'squeeze approach,' which he saw as essential to 'not play along with the lines that Hamas wrote for us.' Bennett's central insight was that Israel should avoid being lured into nonstop urban combat and instead surround and isolate the battlefield, allowing food and medicine to get in but not the things Hamas would need to maintain its war machine, particularly fuel for generators in the tunnels.
Updated for the present, this would mean an indefinite Israeli occupation of Gaza's inner perimeter, including its border with Egypt, and across the territory's midpoint. But as Jonathan Schanzer writes in Commentary magazine, there should be no reconstruction aid for Gaza until Hamas releases the hostages and agrees to disarm. Food and medicine, yes — in abundance. Concrete and rebar, no — not so long as it might be used to rebuild the territory's terror tunnels. It's time for Hamas to feel the brunt of pressure, most of all from Gazans themselves, for the ruins they created.
Those who think of themselves as well-wishers of the Palestinians may want to forever put the moral onus on Israel for all of Gaza's tragedies. But Gaza would not be where it is now had it not been for Hamas, and Gaza cannot be more than it is now so long as Hamas retains effective control. No thoughtful person can be pro-Palestinian without also being anti-Hamas.
At the same time, being pro-Israel means looking at Gaza through the wider lens of Israel's overall interests: the return of the hostages to heal Israel's heart; the relief of Gaza to rehabilitate Israel's reputation (above all among wavering friends); the resumption of regional diplomacy to take advantage of Israel's temporary victories over Hezbollah and Iran; and the restoration of deterrence against Israel's larger and still-menacing enemies.
If Netanyahu makes the colossal mistake of trying to reoccupy Gaza for the long term, then no thoughtful person can be pro-Israel without also being against him.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: [e-mail].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.