Today, Tuesday, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth published an article by retired General Giora Eiland, the author of the Generals’ Plan, in which he criticizes the Israeli military strategy in the war on Gaza, indicating that military pressure alone was not enough to achieve Israel’s goals.
In his article titled “Conclusions of the Gaza War: Military Pressure is Not Enough,” the retired Israeli general confirmed that one of the biggest mistakes was adopting the American narrative that equates the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) with the Islamic State.
According to Eiland, Hamas is not just “a terrorist organization that imposed itself on the residents of Gaza,” but rather it is the “state of Gaza” that declared war on Israel on October 7, 2023, noting that wars between countries usually include imposing an economic blockade on the enemy. .
According to this vision, Israel was not obligated to provide Gaza with all its basic needs in this war, but it could have tightened the siege further, he claimed.
Exploiting Hamas’s weaknesses
The second mistake that Eiland pointed out was Israel’s failure to exploit the “enemy’s” weaknesses. He said, “Wars aim to force the other party to act against its will,” and that there are 3 main ways to achieve this goal, according to his opinion:
- Applying economic sanctions on the enemy, which creates anger and bitterness among the population, and this is the essence of the plan that the generals proposed, and it is now being applied in northern Gaza, but gradually.
- Supporting an alternative government inside Gaza, which Israel rejected throughout the war.
- The threat of losing territory (displacement in other words), a strategy that Israel has not yet tried, he claims.
According to the general, Israel had chosen traditional strategies that focused on military pressure only, which was a grave mistake because it did not take into account that Hamas had prepared itself for 15 years to face this type of pressure.
The third mistake that Eiland mentioned was Israel’s failure to develop a clear political plan regarding the future of Gaza after the war. He pointed out that during the visit of outgoing US President Joe Biden to Israel following the October 7 attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked about Israel’s plans for the next phase of the war, and Netanyahu’s answer was devoid of any specific content or plan, as he said, “When “We get to the next day, we’ll talk about the next day.”
Eiland sees Netanyahu’s statement as an insult and an abandonment of the need for a political vision to manage the post-war period. As he put it, it would have been better if the Israeli government had made clear its position that Israel has no regional or political interest in Gaza, but rather it has a security interest that is the complete demilitarization of the region. Israel should have been prepared to discuss any plan with Arab or Western countries related to providing a political alternative that could guarantee permanent disarmament.
Failed historical experiments
Eiland pointed out that the biggest mistake that countries can make during wars is setting goals without a serious and deep discussion about the appropriate means to achieve them. The general cited some historical examples from ancient wars, such as the French invasion of Russia led by Napoleon, where Napoleon believed that his powerful army would defeat the “inferior” Russian army, a victory that would allow him to achieve his goal: severing Russia’s alliance with Borussia and England.
Napoleon did not take into account Russia’s size, nor the harsh winter, nor the possibility that the Russians, instead of acting according to the scenario he had created, would decide to retreat while creating a scorched earth, Eiland said.
He also touched on the experience of the German leader Hitler, who assumed that the “superiority of the Aryan race” over the “inferior” Slavic peoples was sufficient to win and obtain “living space” in the East. He also touched on the United States’ mistake in the Vietnam War, when Defense Secretary McNamara believed that American military superiority was enough to overthrow North Vietnam.
He concluded, “Going to war without having an effective discussion about the relationship between the aims of war and the appropriate means to achieve them is the classic mistake of history, and it has happened to us as well.”
Failure to free prisoners and end Hamas
Regarding the Israeli conflict with Hamas, Eiland pointed out that the military pressure partially succeeded in weakening Hamas’ military power, but it was not enough to achieve the two main goals: liberating prisoners and ending Hamas. Therefore, Israel needs a different strategy that targets the enemy’s weaknesses, not his strength.
Eiland concluded his article by emphasizing that Israel needs to reevaluate its military and political strategies in the coming wars. Military pressure alone is not enough to achieve major goals in conflicts. Rather, it requires deep thinking about the economic and political means that can lead to the collapse of the hostile regime and the achievement of security and political goals in the long term.
According to the general, failure to adopt these strategies may lead to uncertain results and prolong the war on the Strip without achieving comprehensive victory.