The recent escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas has inflicted a devastating toll on the Gaza Strip, with nearly 40,000 Palestinian deaths. The conflict has reignited international concern regarding Israel’s strategic objectives in the region.

Israel’s leadership articulates that their immediate goals likely include securing the release of captives held by Hamas, deterring future rocket attacks from Gaza and mitigating the risk of a wider regional conflagration with Iran and Hezbollah. To achieve these objectives, Israel has a range of potential military options, each with its own set of challenges and potential consequences.

One option under consideration is a full-scale occupation of the Gaza Strip, which would necessitate a significant deployment of Israeli military forces to establish control over the territory. Alternatively, Israel may seek to dismantle Hamas’s military infrastructure and leadership, with the aim of deterring future attacks, and withdraw from Gaza. Finally, Israel may contemplate facilitating the emergence of a new governing body in Gaza following the removal of Hamas. All potential options present significant drawbacks, entailing high costs and risks for Israel and the surrounding region.

The occupation debate: security vs stability in Gaza

Starting in 1967, the Gaza Strip, which hosted approximately two million Palestinians, remained under Israeli governance. In 2005, after nearly 40 years, Israel executed a withdrawal of its military and settler population in accordance with the Disengagement Plan. After 2007, the governance of the territory transitioned to Hamas. This Islamist militant faction is deemed a terrorist entity by several nations, including the United States and Israel.

Advocates for the reoccupation of Gaza posit that such a measure would facilitate Israel’s management of security dangers originating from the region, notably rocket barrages and the excavation of tunnels for incursion purposes. They contend that a military campaign to disband the armed factions in Gaza would mitigate these perils, thereby bolstering the safety of Israeli nationals.

Conversely, an occupation of Gaza is likely to provoke opposition from both the local populace and militant groups, potentially precipitating an extended conflict. The prospect of serious civilian casualties, coupled with the ensuing humanitarian crisis, could further damage Israel’s international reputation.

Furthermore, occupation would compel Israel to assume the mantle of providing indispensable services to the Gazan populace. It exerts a fiscal strain on Israel. This responsibility would extend to the provision of fundamental necessities such as water, electricity, healthcare and education. Additionally, Israel would have to tackle the challenges of unemployment and impoverishment within the territory.

In a broader perspective, the occupation of Gaza could have enduring ramifications for the Israeli–Palestinian dispute. It discourages the pursuit of a consensual two-state resolution. Such an action infringes upon Palestinian self-governance and national ambitions. Occupation would intensify hostility towards Israel and escalate the cycle of bloodshed and instability across the region.

Israel’s exit and the power vacuum

Alternatively, Israel may decide to withdraw almost completely from Gaza. This proposition presumes Israel’s strategic elimination of Hamas, followed by a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip without establishing subsequent governance.

Such a departure could precipitate a descent into chaos as disparate factions contend for dominance in the absence of Hamas. Entities such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad might emerge as a more formidable threat to Israel than Gaza’s rulers. The resulting anarchy would resemble the situation in Iraq after the United States’ 2003 overthrow of the Baathist regime.

Notwithstanding its history of violent engagements with Israel, Hamas has demonstrated a propensity towards compromise. This is evidenced by its endorsement of a two-state solution along the 1967 borders within its 2017 charter. Should Hamas’s control wane, Gaza would risk becoming a sanctuary for still more dangerous extremist militias, drawing elements from North Africa, Syria and Iraq.

Shifting sands of governance in post-Hamas Gaza

Should Israel succeed in ousting Hamas and asserting control over the Gaza Strip, the strip will be incumbent upon it to identify a local partner to assist in the area’s governance.

Israel would endeavor to foster relationships with various Palestinian factions and entities within Gaza to aid in the establishment of a fresh governing coalition. Potential partners may include tribal chieftains, civil society organizations, municipal dignitaries or eminent members of Fatah, the party at the helm of the Palestinian Authority that governs the West Bank. Fatah represents the most feasible or rational option for Israel’s Tel Aviv. Prior to the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, the Palestinian Authority was Gaza’s governing body until Hamas deposed it following a coup d’etat.

The principal obstacle in this scenario is the waning support for Fatah and the Palestinian Authority amongst the Palestinian populace. In the West Bank, there is a growing perception that Fatah is collaborating with Israel’s military occupation. Palestinians regard them as corrupt, ineffectual elites lacking a coherent political strategy. This attitude paves the way for alternative narratives and forms of resistance to the occupation, such as Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

As it stands, none of these three scenarios can come to fruition unless the Israeli army completely wipes out Hamas, which is highly unlikely. The group’s extensive network of underground tunnels and the realities of urban warfare in the densely populated strip would pose enormous military challenges for any conventional army.

More fundamentally, even if Israel destroys much of Hamas’ infrastructure, its ideology will persist. Hamas is more popular now than ever. Its public support soared in both Gaza and the West Bank after the October 7, 2023 airstrikes.

Israel’s intentions for the Gaza Strip following its potential removal of Hamas are these: Israel may consider occupying Gaza post-Hamas, despite the economic and human costs and global disapproval. Leaving Gaza post-conflict could lead to a power vacuum and extremism. For now, joint governance of Gaza by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, similar to the present situation in the West Bank, seems to be the only plausible option. Achieving even this, however, would be a Herculean undertaking.

[Ali Omar Forozish and Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.