Israel’s ground offensive in Gaza began last week with a slow, gradual advance of ground forces along three main axes: from the north, armored and mechanized units moved towards Gaza City in two columns on a front of 6 km (3.7 miles). The most powerful force moved directly towards the central sections of the urban settlement and reached it without obstruction or significant losses.
The second column moves along the beaches of the Mediterranean. Although it appears to have advanced further south than the units advancing against the city, it appears that this force has not yet completely cut off Gaza City’s access to the sea.
The third group advanced from the east, through relatively easy terrain of deserts and farmland, with a few small hamlets unsuitable for mounting a determined defense. It reached the sea, cutting off the northern part of the Strip, with Gaza City, from the south, as I predicted three weeks ago.
Establishing the facts on the ground is not easy, but information from both sides and non-combatants appears to confirm that the front lines have moved.
It is difficult to determine how the ground battles are going and how the two armies behave. There is little reliable information and many unverified or unverifiable claims. There are very few observers on the ground who can recognize the minute details of the tactics and operations of both sides and who also have the integrity and impartiality to report on them.
Analysts like me must draw on their own wartime experience and their ability to read between the lines of press releases and official announcements. These almost inevitably contain facts laced with propaganda and outright lies, intended to mislead observers or obscure unpleasant issues.
The rise of social media means that ordinary citizens, rather than trained journalists, are often first on the scene of an important event. While it is commendable that with the advent of civilians with multimedia-enabled mobile phones we have more material from war zones, we must be careful and accept as fact even what videos and photographs claim to show.
The number of misleading and erroneous claims, many made honestly and in good faith, has increased significantly, as has the volume of intentionally false claims purporting to come from witnesses. A journalist or analyst must judge the plausibility and veracity of the claims made. Thousands of examples prove that the same video can have two sides. To illustrate the complexity of basing testimony and explanation on a single scene or side, I will use an example from another war I have covered.
Some buildings in a hospital complex were hit by smart bombs, causing numerous casualties. Numerous film crews, including international agencies and respectable television channels, quickly arrived on the scene and officials from the targeted camp deplored the way the attackers had struck the hospital, protected by international law of war.
A handful of experienced journalists tried to find out more, sneaking to the other side of the hospital despite the military ban and roadblocks. They observed that the army of the attacked camp was hastily extracting its dead and wounded soldiers as well as its radar equipment and missiles from these supposedly medical treatment facilities.
Once discovered, the journalists were attacked not only by the soldiers, but also by local civilians who firmly believed that the international media should present them only as victims and not as people abusing the status of protected sites.
Versions of this type are found in every war – and often on both sides.
Meanwhile, despite incessant aerial bombardments, the urban war in Gaza does not appear to have actually begun. It’s not yet door-to-door and tunnels.
From the videos available so far, it appears that both sides are limiting their engagement to small-scale investigations and very brief hit-and-run attacks.
The Israelis appear to have opted for a slower approach, using significant numbers of dismounted troops. Rather than remaining safe in heavy armored personnel carriers, infantry must dismount, scatter, and follow the tanks on foot. They take higher risks, but tanks are safer.
The need for such tactics is confirmed by a Palestinian video showing a daring ambush that destroyed a latest generation Merkava. A Hamas fighter runs toward the tank from the side, creating a blind spot for the crew, and plants an explosive device. Then another hunter hit the explosive from a distance with an anti-tank projectile, causing an explosion far more powerful than that of a single weapon. Hamas claimed to have destroyed three Merkavas, but details of the other cases are not known.
Although the video does not show it, this surprise tank strike could have taken place using one of Hamas’ tunnels to approach the Israeli position. If so, it would illustrate how dangerous they can be.
One of the first Israeli army videos from the urban area of Gaza City shows soldiers inspecting a manhole and the opening of a vertical entrance to one of these tunnels.
The attackers have likely identified hundreds or even thousands of access points to the tunnel network. Going inside to hunt down Hamas fighters, attempting to free at least a few hostages and ultimately destroying the tunnels will likely be the next, bloodier and longer stage of the war.
But as the United States increasingly emphasizes the need for a “significant pause” in fighting to give negotiations over the release of the hostages a chance, that step could be postponed or even avoided altogether.
