Ending a war is much difficult than starting one. Without one side capability to achieve a decisive victory that subjects the other side to a full defeat and surrender, all other options become debatable.
Jakarta, IO – Ending a war is much difficult than starting one. Without one side capability to achieve a decisive victory that subjects the other side to a full defeat and surrender, all other options become debatable. Situation becomes more dire when a conventional army engages in an urban warfare against a non-state actor in a densely populated region. Without a clear strategy based on achievable goals, the war continues, dragging the army deeper into a swamp against an elusive enemy, causing massive destruction and endless civilian casualties.
Israel retaliatory war in Gaza since October 2023 has entered its eighth month without achieving its declared goals of eliminating Hamas or securing the release of the hostages. Humiliated, internationally isolated and facing accusation of committing democide in Gaza, Israel is facing a dilemma: neither could Israel end the war without a satisfying and face-saving victory, nor could Israel indefinitely continue with the detrimental war.
According to Terry Deibel of the National War College, superior military does not guarantee success. Additionally, a high loss of lives and substantiative cost diminishes public support for military actions. In his book “Foreign Affairs Strategy,” page 277, Deibel argues that because military has its limitations, “strategists should leave their country with a way out in case of failure.”
With no clear exit strategy, Israel’s prolonged and destructive war in Gaza demonstrates that revenge has taken precedence over strategy. Furthermore, continuing this military campaign results in more civilian deaths and endangers the hostages’ lives. Evidently, ending the war becomes Israel’s most rational and achievable option, which could be pursued through three scenarios: 1. Israel unilaterally declares a cease-fire. Such a significant step will be commended worldwide and potentially create an opportunity for a much-desired peaceful resolution.
Dennis Ross, former U.S. envoy to the Middle East favors this option. Despite initially backing the war in its earlier months, on April 15, Ross argued that Israel must end the Gaza war since freeing the Israeli hostages “was never possible by military means.” According to Ross, Israel needs a strategy “tied to a clear and achievable objective.” According to Ross, “Bad statecraft” is always linked to objectives that neither can be achieved nor generate support. For Ross, Gaza demilitarization should be Israel’s strategic objective. A mechanism should be created to make sure Hamas will never return to power.
Two weeks later on May 1st, Ross, along with David Makovky of the Washington Institute that advocates for Israel’s causes, reiterated favoring an Israeli unilateral cease-fire or a humanitarian pause of four to six weeks. According to the writers, a unilateral cease-fire is “the only realistic alternative” for Israel as it would shift global attention to Hamas’ inflexibility, emphasize the hostages’ predicament, improve international perception of Israel’s stance, and ease the pressure on Israel to end the war unconditionally. However, the writers also acknowledge the difficulty of implementing this proposal, as it “delinks” a cease-fire from the release of the hostages, eases pressure on Hamas, and politically undermines Netanyahu’s leadership. 2. Reaching an agreement with Hamas is the second and most viable option. As Dennis Ross argued against the possibility of releasing the hostages by military means, many U.S. officials and military experts, including those in Israel, contend that a total victory over Hamas is unachievable.
Criticizing the lack of a strategic endgame linked to Israel’s military operation in Gaza, U.S. critics are voicing frustration over Israel’s refusal to heed U.S. advice, suggesting Israel is repeating U.S. mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Jason Crow, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a largescale military operation not centered on humanitarian assistance and the protection of civilians is destined to fail.
After eight months of destructive military actions in Gaza, Israel has failed to eliminate Hamas. In addition to that, the only successful hostages’ release was achieved through negotiations in November. Therefore, reviving talks between Hamas and Israel becomes the most viable way to end this conflict. Reaching an agreement would ease the burden on the Palestinian population and grant Israel a face-saving measure. As the Biden’s administration is supporting this option and Israel is reportedly easing restrictions on its negotiating team, this scenario becomes the most rational and is projected to succeed. As negotiations resume, the likelihood of reaching a feasible agreement becomes high.
3. The third and least rational option for Israel to end this war is to continue the military assault in Gaza until total victory over Hamas is achieved and the hostages are freed.
However, eliminating Hamas has proven to be a red herring. Eight fruitless months of exhausting military operations in Gaza are reason enough for pursuing other alternatives to end this conflict. As global criticism mounts, including from the White House, highlighting Israel’s lack of a clear endgame strategy, and as pressure grows inside Israel for the safe and immediate release of the hostages, Israel’s military operation is losing momentum, public support, and facing international scrutiny.
The International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to immediately halt its military assault in Rafah. The International Criminal Court Prosecutor has recommended arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. European countries are officially recognizing the State of Palestine, and global anger is mounting against Israel due to the war’s toll on the Palestinian population and the dire humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Additionally, the war in Gaza has negatively impacted Israel’s economy, disrupted international trade routes, emboldened non-state actors, and contributed to regional instability. What benefit could continuing the war in Gaza bring to Israel?
Read: Palestine’s Quest For UN Recognition: What’s Next And What’s At Stake?
Other than unprecedented destruction and human calamity, Israel’s military campaign has not achieved its declared goals. In fact, Israel has lost the war in Gaza twice: once when it failed to anticipate and halt Hamas’ attack on October 7th despite its advanced and sophisticated intelligence prowess, and again when it launched a large-scale war on Gaza, fueled by revenge rather than based on clear and achievable objectives. While continuing the war is futile, a unilateral ceasefire without the successful release of hostages or the decapitation of Hamas leadership also implies an acknowledgment of failure. Hence, negotiating an agreement with Hamas becomes the most feasible option to end this conflict. However, reaching such an agreement also embeds an admission that Hamas, despite being weakened, still holds leverage and power over Gaza.
Since asymmetrical power does not guarantee victory, nor can brute force achieve lasting stability, a political solution that guarantees the Palestinian people the inherent right to self-determination and to establish their own independent and sovereign state becomes the only viable path toward long-standing peace.
Hatem El-Gamasy is an independent political analyst based in New York. Holding a master’s degree in international relations from Seton Hall School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Mr. El-Gamay’s analyses focus on the MENA region and the Global South related issues.