Israel Faces Dilemma: How to Fight Hamas in Gaza's Urban Tunnels

The challenge of fighting in Gaza's densely populated urban environment, particularly with its extensive tunnel network, presents a complex dilemma for the Israeli military. Tunnels, often running beneath civilian structures, complicate military operations, as striking underground targets risks collateral damage to buildings and residents above. Sending ground troops into these areas endangers both soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire. The article highlights the difficult choice between bombing, which risks civilian lives, and ground operations, which pose risks to soldiers and civilians, while inaction allows Hamas to strengthen.

The article recalls the 2014 conflict, during which Israel discovered 14 tunnels crossing the border and 18 approaching it, alongside numerous internal Gaza tunnels used by militants for cover and movement. The presence of tunnel entrances near homes or under residential areas forces difficult decisions: destroying a tunnel could harm nearby residents, while leaving it intact allows Hamas to use it against Israel.

International laws of war, while sometimes seen as obstacles, are rooted in the realities of combat, requiring verification of military targets, assessment of civilian presence, and minimization of harm. Decisions on attacks must be made with incomplete information, but commanders are obligated to gather intelligence on potential civilian casualties, structural integrity of nearby buildings, and alternative attack methods or timings.

The article references the April 2024 incident where Israeli strikes killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers. An IDF investigation found mistaken identification, decision-making errors, and protocol violations, leading to the dismissal of two officers and disciplinary actions against three others. A criminal investigation was not opened.

While Hamas is accused of violating rules by placing military assets among civilians and using human shields, this does not grant Israel license to kill civilians. The article outlines three potential approaches: a large-scale operation to control territory and uncover tunnels, which risks significant civilian casualties and building damage; limited operations against confirmed targets with careful vetting and potential delays, reducing destruction but not eliminating the tunnel threat quickly and increasing soldier risk; or a ceasefire agreement tied to security conditions. A ceasefire alone does not dismantle Hamas's infrastructure but could facilitate hostage exchanges, aid delivery, civilian recovery, and negotiations on Gaza's governance.

The article concludes that a military operation alone cannot solve the underlying issues and that a political solution is necessary for lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Without a clear answer on who will control security in Gaza post-conflict, the war is unlikely to end, and the threat of renewed conflict will persist for both sides.