Perspective 123. Crushing Hamas: A One-Sided Policy?

In the days to come, Israel will pursue its declared aim of destroying Hamas as a fighting force. Whether this bloody campaign will succeed or not – and experts point out that it will be “fiendishly difficult” – it will be insufficient to destroy Hamas as a political force. Are there other policies that should accompany, if not replace, reliance on massive military action?

Yes. Hamas enjoys its position in the Palestinian world today, and its control of the Gaza strip, because of the absence of a credible alternative. Before 2007 Gaza, along with the West Bank, was controlled by a Palestinian organization (the Palestinian Authority) that recognized Israel and accepted an agreed framework for resolution of the conflict. A vast majority of Palestinians supported the two-state solution. Those days are long gone, in part because of Israeli policies that undercut the PA and the feasibility of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

In perspective, neither side in this protracted and tragic conflict has shown much wisdom in considering how its own actions affect the internal dynamics of the other. Palestinians have done little to convince Israelis that a two-state solution would end the conflict, while the militants among them have made “armed struggle” into an icon, giving a great boost to Israeli hawks. Likewise Israeli governments have consistently failed to bolster the PA’s standing among its own people, allowing a growth of Jewish West Bank settlements that makes the idea of a Palestinian state increasingly unlikely. There is good evidence that under recent governments Israel has even seen Hamas in Gaza as a useful counterweight to the PA and as an excuse for avoiding unwanted negotiations.

But strategic logic ought to favor the strengthening of moderates on the other side – assuming that one wants a solution. It also dictates that there should be a carrot as well as a stick. There should be positive incentives to abandon the course of war and enjoy the benefits of peace. This should not be beyond human ingenuity. For most people, peace is better than war.

Clearly Israel has the right to respond to the vicious and barbarous assaults of October 7. This includes the right to go to war, though there are legal restraints on how that war is conducted. These restraints are based, however, on the distinction between civilian and military targets, and the basic strategy of Hamas is to blur this distinction. There are and will be more civilian casualties in Gaza, whether “proportionate” or not.

All the more reason for a positive vision of what might replace Hamas on the broader stage. A coherent Israeli strategy for the future would seek to strengthen the PA in its standing among Palestinians and as a negotiating partner. It would offer a credible version of a Palestinian state that would offer a better future than the dead end of “armed struggle.”

To be credible, such a policy would require the containment of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The Israeli army must not only deal with Hamas, but must also stop settler violence against Palestinians. To create a viable Palestinian state, some settlements may need to be dismantled.

Obviously such changes in Israeli policy will not take place under the government that was in place before the war. If the war accomplishes nothing else, maybe it will lead to a fundamental change of direction.