Ending a war is much harder than starting one. Without the ability of one side to score a decisive victory and force the other into complete defeat and surrender, all other options are moot. The situation is even more dire when conventional forces wage urban warfare against non-state actors in densely populated areas. Without a clear strategy based on achievable goals, the war will continue and forces will be dragged ever deeper into the quagmire with an elusive enemy, causing massive destruction and countless civilian casualties.
Israel’s retaliatory war in Gaza, which began in October 2023, is now in its eighth month without achieving its declared goals of eliminating Hamas and securing the release of the hostages. Humiliated, isolated internationally, and facing accusations of democratizing Gaza, Israel faces a dilemma: it cannot end the war without a satisfying, face-saving victory, but it also cannot continue a harmful war indefinitely.
According to Terry Deibel of the National War College, superior military power does not guarantee success. Moreover, public support for military action weakens when large numbers of lives are lost and substantial costs are incurred. In his book Foreign Policy, page 277, Deibel argues that because military power is limited, “strategists must leave an escape route in case of failure.”
Without a clear exit strategy, Israel’s protracted and destructive war in Gaza demonstrates that revenge takes precedence over strategy. Moreover, the continuation of this military operation will increase civilian deaths and endanger the lives of hostages. Clearly, ending the war becomes Israel’s most rational and feasible option, which could be pursued through three scenarios:
Israel has unilaterally declared a ceasefire, a significant step that has been applauded around the world and could create an opportunity for a much-needed peaceful resolution.
Former US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross supports this option. Although he initially supported war, on April 15, Ross argued that Israel must end the Gaza war because the release of Israeli hostages “can never be achieved by military means.” According to Ross, Israel needs a strategy “tied to clear and achievable goals.” According to Ross, “bad state management” is always tied to goals that can never be achieved or supported. For Ross, demilitarizing Gaza should be Israel’s strategic objective. Mechanisms should be created to prevent Hamas from returning to power.
Two weeks later, on May 1, Roth, along with David Makovky of the Washington Institute, which supports Israel’s position, reiterated their support for a unilateral Israeli ceasefire or a four- to six-week humanitarian ceasefire. According to the authors, a unilateral ceasefire is “the only realistic option” for Israel, as it would focus world attention on Hamas’s stubbornness, highlight the hostages’ plight, improve the international community’s perception of Israel’s position, and ease pressure on Israel to end the war unconditionally. However, the authors acknowledge the difficulty of implementing this proposal, as it would “decouple” the ceasefire from the release of the hostages, lessen pressure on Hamas, and politically weaken Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership.
A deal with Hamas is the second and most feasible option. Just as Dennis Ross has argued against the possibility of freeing the hostages through military means, many US officials and military experts, including Israelis, argue that a complete victory over Hamas is unattainable.
U.S. critics say Israel’s military operation in Gaza lacks a strategic end point and express frustration that Israel is not listening to U.S. advice. They see Israel repeating the mistakes of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to U.S. Representative Jason Crow, any large-scale military operation that does not focus on humanitarian aid and protecting civilians is doomed to fail.
Israel has failed to dislodge Hamas after eight months of destructive military operations in Gaza. In addition, the only successful hostage release was through negotiations in November. Resuming negotiations between Hamas and Israel is therefore the most realistic way to end this conflict. Reaching an agreement would ease the burden on the Palestinian population and give Israel a measure of face saving. With the Biden administration supporting this option and Israel reportedly easing restrictions on its negotiating team, this scenario is the most reasonable and is expected to succeed. As negotiations resume, the chances of reaching a viable agreement increase.
The third and most irrational option for Israel to end this war is to continue its military assault on Gaza until complete victory over Hamas is achieved and the hostages are released.
But eliminating Hamas has proven misguided. Eight months of futile military operations in Gaza are reason enough to pursue other options to end this conflict. Amid growing global criticism, including from the White House, highlighting Israel’s lack of a clear end-of-war strategy, and mounting pressure inside Israel for the safe and immediate release of the hostages, Israel’s military operation has lost momentum, lost public support, and faced international scrutiny.
The International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to immediately cease military attacks on Rafah. The International Criminal Court prosecutor has recommended arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant. European countries have formally recognized the State of Palestine, and the toll of the war on Palestinian residents and the dire humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip have fueled global anger against Israel. Moreover, the war in Gaza has adversely affected the Israeli economy, disrupted international trade routes, emboldened non-state actors, and contributed to regional destabilization. What benefit does Israel derive from continuing the war in Gaza?
Israel’s military operations have not achieved their declared objectives, apart from unprecedented destruction and human disaster. In fact, Israel has been defeated twice in the war in Gaza: once when it failed to predict and thwart the Hamas attack on October 7, despite advanced and sophisticated intelligence, and again when it launched a major war on Gaza out of a desire for revenge, rather than based on clear and achievable goals. Continuing the war would be futile, but a unilateral ceasefire without success in releasing the hostages or decapitating the Hamas leaders would mean an admission of failure. Negotiating an agreement with Hamas would therefore be the most feasible option to end the conflict. However, reaching such an agreement would also be an admission that Hamas, although weakened, still retains influence and power over Gaza.
Because asymmetric power cannot guarantee victory and lasting stability cannot be achieved through violence, a political solution that guarantees the Palestinian people their inherent right to self-determination and to establish their own independent and sovereign state is the only viable path to lasting peace.
