Israeli Hesitation in Gaza Risks Renewed Hamas Threat Despite Trump’s Support
Since the start of Donald Trump's second term as U.S. president, American policy toward Gaza shifted dramatically, granting Israel unprecedented freedom to act decisively against Hamas. Trump issued a stark ultimatum demanding the return of all hostages by a set deadline, promising severe consequences if unmet. However, Israel chose a cautious approach, opting for partial agreements and diplomacy rather than full military resolution. This strategy allowed Hamas to retain significant power, culminating in a costly deal that secured the release of all hostages but involved freeing numerous prisoners.
Despite this historic achievement, many feared scenarios are unfolding. Israel has honored its commitments by halting targeted killings and preemptive strikes, yet Hamas continues to obstruct progress, insisting on conditions that would leave it effectively in control of Gaza. Hamas demands Israeli withdrawal from key areas before disarmament, proposes storing weapons instead of full dismantlement, and suggests transferring arms to other Palestinian factions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently rejected Hamas's 15-point proposal and affirmed no Israeli withdrawal before Hamas's complete disarmament.
Tensions remain high, as recent Hamas infiltrations into Israeli-controlled zones resulted in the capture of Israeli weapons, with Israeli forces reportedly restrained from responding. This operational hesitancy echoes the failures that led to the deadly October 7 attacks. The article criticizes Israel's indecision and reliance on international mediation, arguing that a clear military governance and decisive action against Hamas should have been established early in the conflict to prevent ongoing threats.
Additionally, the article highlights the failure to advance a voluntary Gaza migration plan championed by Trump, aimed at reducing Gaza's population and easing tensions. Israel did not sufficiently support this initiative, and Netanyahu claims no country is willing to accept Gazans. The author suggests Israel could have leveraged diplomatic and economic incentives to encourage other nations to participate.
The piece concludes that Gaza is not a fixed fate but a hostile territory requiring firm resolution through strength and determination. Hamas must face a significant strategic price for its actions on October 7, which has yet to occur. The call is for Israel to abandon illusions of security through diplomacy alone and demand full security through decisive measures.
