Israel’s Escalation in Gaza

Israel’s plan to intensify its military campaign in Gaza is drawing strong international condemnation. Critics decry the deepening humanitarian crisis and the risks of a prolonged occupation. But as controversial and painful as the move may be, it may also be the most realistic path toward ending the war and dismantling the threat of Hamas.

The concerns are real. Civilian suffering in Gaza is intense. The war has displaced hundreds of thousands and strained an already broken humanitarian infrastructure. But it is essential to separate valid concern from strategic myopia. Israel faces a brutal, entrenched enemy in Hamas — an organization that not only orchestrated the Oct. 7 massacre but has embedded itself within civilian infrastructure precisely to exploit the legal and moral constraints that democratic armies must observe. In this context, Israel’s expanded operation — while fraught with risk — is not reckless. It is a difficult, calculated necessity.

As David French argued in a recent New York Times piece, a temporary ground occupation may be the only way to fully uproot the foundation Hamas has built within Gaza and relieve the terror group’s stranglehold on the population. Without such an effort, Hamas will survive to fight another day, continuing to rule with authoritarian control and launching further attacks on Israeli civilians.

But Israel’s approach must be guided by discipline and moral clarity. Civilians must be protected — not only because international law demands it but also because the legitimacy of Israel’s cause depends on it. The temporary relocation of civilians, while deeply distressing, is acceptable when aimed at preserving life. And efforts to remove civilians from combat zones, even when done imperfectly, are a better alternative than allowing them to remain in harm’s way.

We recognize that the word “occupation” raises alarms, particularly among Palestinians who fear that any Israeli military presence could become permanent. These concerns are valid. As such, Israel needs to make clear that any Gaza occupation will be temporary, purely tactical, and part of a broader strategy that leads to both security and political transition. Israel also needs to make clear that its goal is not to govern Gaza; rather, that its efforts will clear the way for a post-Hamas future — ideally with support from regional partners and the international community.

Critics properly argue that military action alone cannot solve the deeper political and societal issues that fuel this conflict. They are right. Gaza’s long isolation, the collapse of the peace process, and the absence of credible Palestinian leadership all contribute to a volatile and tragic status quo. But security is the foundation upon which any future political solution must be built. Hamas’ continued presence makes that future impossible.

Israel knows that it must conduct this campaign with maximum care. Every move will be scrutinized and second-guessed. That is Israel’s reality. But Israel cannot not be asked to abandon a strategy that may finally bring an end to Hamas’ reign of terror. And so, while we have no problem with demands for accountability and restraint, it should also be understood that Israel cannot afford to walk away from this fight without finishing it.

Israel’s current path is controversial — but it may also be the most honest, effective and ultimately humane way to bring this devastating war to an end. ■