Why Netanyahu is Forging Ahead with Gaza City Op, Despite Fierce Backlash

Netanyahu’s plan to encircle and seize Gaza City, as part of Operation Gideon’s Chariots, aims to dismantle Hamas’s operational capabilities and secure the release of 50 hostages (30 believed dead) still held in Gaza, per Israeli estimates. The decision, despite the high cost potentially thousands of IDF soldiers’ lives and the intention to transfer governance to Arab or other non-Israeli bodies afterwards, is driven by several strategic and political factors:

1. Strategic Imperative to Weaken Hamas:

Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel must “finish the job” against Hamas, which he views as an existential threat following its October 7, 2023, attack that killed 1,200 Israelis and abducted 251. Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir emphasized that Hamas’s capabilities have been severely degraded, but its remaining infrastructure in Gaza City, its political and military hub, remains a priority target. Encircling the city aims to destroy Hamas’s command centers, weapons caches, and tunnel networks, which Israel sees as critical to preventing future attacks. The sources indicate Zamir’s focus on “deepening the blow” to Hamas until its defeat, suggesting the offensive is seen as a necessary step to eliminate the group’s ability to regroup.

2. Hostage Crisis Pressure:

The fear that Hamas may move hostages into Gaza City, as reported by Asharq Al-Awsat, adds urgency. Hamas’s reported strategy to intertwine captives’ fates with civilians could complicate IDF operations, potentially forcing Israel to act swiftly before hostages are dispersed into urban areas, making rescue missions riskier. Netanyahu faces intense domestic pressure from hostage families, who protested the offensive as a “death sentence” for their loved ones, yet he may see a military operation as the only way to pressure Hamas into releasing captives, given stalled ceasefire talks. The sources note Hamas’s demand for a full end to hostilities, which Israel rejects.

3. Political Survival and Domestic Support:

Netanyahu’s insistence on a decisive military move may be tied to his political survival. Facing criticism over the October 7 failures, he has framed the war as a moral and security necessity, as seen in his Fox News interview defending the need to “finish the job.” Handing Gaza’s governance to Arab forces post-conflict aligns with his stated goal of avoiding long-term Israeli control, which could alienate his coalition’s right-wing base while addressing international calls for a post-war plan. However, encircling Gaza City, even at high cost, signals strength to his domestic audience, particularly amid protests from pilots and hostage families questioning the operation’s wisdom.

4. International and Regional Dynamics:

The plan to transfer governance to non-Israeli bodies, possibly Arab forces, reflects pressure from allies like the US, which has pushed for a post-conflict framework that avoids Israeli reoccupation. Netanyahu’s proposal in the Fox News interview aligns with this, but the offensive itself risks straining ties with the EU and Germany, which suspended arms exports, and draws UN condemnation. He may see a swift, decisive operation as a way to reset the conflict’s dynamics, forcing Hamas into a weaker negotiating position while signaling to regional players like Egypt and Qatar that Israel is committed to altering Gaza’s status quo.

5. Perceived Lack of Alternatives:

With ceasefire talks in Cairo stalled, Hamas demands a complete Israeli withdrawal, while Israel insists on hostage release and Hamas’ defeat, Netanyahu may view military action as the only viable path. The sources highlight Hamas’s intransigence, including its reported new hostage proposal, which Israel likely sees as a delay tactic. Encircling Gaza City could pressure Hamas by threatening its stronghold, potentially forcing concessions or enabling targeted hostage rescue operations, though at significant risk.

Why It Seems Pointless:

The high cost in IDF lives and the plan to cede control post-offensive raise serious questions about its value. Critics, including protesting pilots and hostage families, argue the operation risks escalating casualties without guaranteeing hostage recovery or long-term stability, especially if governance shifts to untested Arab forces. The humanitarian toll further fuels skepticism, as does the lack of a clear plan for Gaza’s future governance.

What He Could Do Instead:

Given the stalled talks and Hamas’s reported hostage strategy, Netanyahu’s options are limited but not nonexistent. Here are feasible alternatives, grounded in the current context:

1. Intensify Ceasefire Negotiations with External Pressure:

Egypt, Qatar, and the US have mediated talks, and a new hostage and ceasefire proposal was reportedly presented to Hamas. Israel could lean on these mediators to pressure Hamas, possibly by offering temporary concessions (e.g., limited pauses in hostilities or increased aid access) to secure partial hostage releases. This approach risks appearing weak domestically but could save IDF lives and reduce civilian casualties. The sources suggest Hamas’s willingness to negotiate, though its demands remain maximalist.

2. Targeted Special Forces Operations:

Instead of a full-scale encirclement, Israel could prioritize intelligence-driven raids to rescue hostages, as it has done successfully in past operations (e.g., Nuseirat camp rescues in 2024). This would minimize IDF casualties and civilian displacement but requires precise intelligence, which may be lacking if Hamas moves hostages into Gaza City’s dense urban areas, as feared.

3. Humanitarian and Diplomatic Offensive:

Israel could pair limited military pressure (e.g., airstrikes on Hamas infrastructure) with a robust humanitarian push, allowing more aid trucks into Gaza to counter famine claims and win international goodwill. Open Source Intel’s data showing falling food prices ($4.70/kg for flour) suggests aid is reaching markets, which Israel could amplify to weaken Hamas’s narrative of crisis. Diplomatically, Israel could propose a post-war governance plan involving Arab states, incentivizing their involvement in exchange for economic or security cooperation. This could pressure Hamas indirectly but risks prolonging the conflict without immediate hostage resolution.

4. Escalated Covert Operations:

Israel could intensify Mossad-led efforts to disrupt Hamas’s leadership abroad or sabotage its supply lines, forcing the group into concessions without a costly urban assault. This approach, however, may not address the immediate hostage crisis and could escalate regional tensions if operations target figures in Qatar or Turkey.

5. International Coalition for Hostage Recovery:

Netanyahu could rally allies like the US to form a coalition focused on hostage recovery, combining intelligence sharing, sanctions on Hamas’s financial networks, and public pressure campaigns. This would shift some responsibility to international actors but requires time and coordination, which may not align with the urgency of the hostage situation.

Why the Offensive Persists Over Alternatives

Netanyahu’s choice of a high-risk offensive likely stems from a mix of strategic necessity and political calculus. Militarily, encircling Gaza City targets Hamas’s core, which Israel sees as non-negotiable after October 7. Politically, it projects strength amid domestic criticism and counters Hamas’s hostage maneuver, which could erode Israel’s leverage if left unaddressed. Alternatives like negotiations or targeted raids, while less costly, risk prolonging the conflict or failing to secure hostages, potentially weakening Netanyahu’s coalition. Handing governance to Arab forces post-offensive aims to balance international demands with Israel’s security goals, though its feasibility remains unclear.

The hostage debacle and Hamas’s intransigence leave no easy options. A full offensive risks catastrophic losses, but as we have seem time and time again, inaction emboldens Hamas and prolong the hostages' torment. Netanyahu’s gamble hinges on decisive action forcing a breakthrough, but the human and political costs could prove staggering.

Of course, there are always those who claim he's just doing it to stay in power, but we stopped listening to those hateful prophets of doom ages ago.