One war, many fronts

(Baothanhhoa.vn) - Nearly two years after October 7, 2023, what began as a punitive campaign has transformed into a protracted war of attrition. Expanding fronts, stalled negotiations, and a deteriorating humanitarian situation have shaped a military and political stalemate in Gaza.

Infrastructure was destroyed or severely damaged. Photo: Izvestia

Gaza Strip and West Bank - Dual Objectives in the “Greater Israel” Initiative

In early August, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in an interview with Fox News that Israel planned to “eliminate Hamas,” gain control of the entire Gaza Strip, and then hand over the area to a “non-Hamas” entity. Just one day later, the Israeli security cabinet approved the plan to invade Gaza.

From mid-August, Israel's military strategy began to resemble a siege. Intensive airstrikes were carried out in Zeitoun, Shejaiya, and Sabra; sweep operations took place in Jabalia; while tens of thousands of reserve troops were deployed. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed the deployment of ground troops to the outskirts of Gaza City, marking the next phase in the overall operation. However, with civilian infrastructure severely damaged and food supplies scarce, any signs of stabilization are overshadowed by the risk of a humanitarian catastrophe. Numerous international organizations warned of the risk of widespread famine, while noting a growing number of civilian casualties.

The situation in Gaza is inseparable from the structural changes taking place in the West Bank. On July 23, the Israeli Knesset approved a declaration extending its sovereignty to Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley. Then, on August 20, the Israeli government approved Project E1, a plan to build more than 3,400 housing units in the West Bank, raising international concerns about the prospect of the Palestinian state being wiped out.

Observers believe that, when viewed holistically, the actions of the Israeli authorities in Gaza and the West Bank are not two separate processes, but rather complementary parts of a unified strategy. In Gaza, the goal is extensive military control without a clear roadmap for "handing over the keys" to a civilian government; while in the West Bank, it is a series of on-the-ground changes aimed at consolidating long-term sovereignty.

Lacking a legitimate and viable mechanism for civilian governance, post-Hamas Gaza risks becoming a "power vacuum," where any military victory is easily overshadowed by political collapse. Meanwhile, in the West Bank, strategic moves such as Project E1 or the Israeli Knesset's declaration of expanded sovereignty are eroding the neutrality of territorial status negotiations, shifting them away from the diplomatic table and onto the ground. The narrower the gap between these two fronts, the more tenuous the chances of an agreement to end the war through institutional means rather than military victory.

While the IDF's military operation hasn't been officially called an "occupation," developments on the ground indicate a deep level of intervention. Armored forces have advanced into the Sabra area, near the center of Gaza City, while artillery and airstrikes are being used to clear the way. Israeli military officials view this as preparation for a larger-scale operation. Approximately 60,000 reserve troops have been mobilized since the beginning of September, signaling a prolonged campaign rather than a short-term one.

The wave of protests is growing.

This military escalation coincided with notable diplomatic moves. On August 18, Hamas informed Egyptian and Qatari mediators that it was willing to accept a temporary ceasefire: a 60-day halt to hostilities, the release of 10 surviving hostages, and the return of the bodies of 18 slain, in exchange for Israel easing its prisoner policy and providing humanitarian aid. Israel rejected this proposal, demanding the release of all hostages. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered a “shortening of the time to control the last remaining strongholds” and “defeating Hamas.”

The Israeli army is conducting a military operation in the Gaza Strip. Photo: Global Look Press.

This strategy clearly carries a political message: either Hamas must make concessions in negotiations, or Israel can justify its seizure of Gaza City by force. However, a fundamental contradiction exists between military and political logic. Without a clear political structure for the post-war period—who will govern Gaza, and what their roles and responsibilities will be—Israel's military campaign risks repeating the unresolved problems of previous campaigns.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's public declaration in August about his commitment to the concept of "Greater Israel" sparked a wave of reactions from Arab capitals, not only at the diplomatic level, but also in terms of strategic direction. From their perspective, the combination of military action in Gaza and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank is no longer a situation, but a deliberate strategy. In fact, nearly two years of conflict have not eliminated the threat from Hamas, while the military is not entirely in agreement. According to Kan TV, the Israeli General Staff has warned that a full-scale occupation would cause heavy casualties and could affect the fate of hostages. They proposed an alternative: encircling Gaza and gradually "breaking down" Hamas's structure instead of a direct attack.

The opposition has repeatedly issued warnings. Opposition leader Yair Lapid once stated: "A new occupation of Gaza is a bad idea." Political pressure on the Israeli government is increasing, both domestically and internationally. Western partners are seriously discussing the possibility of recognizing a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly session in September. This is seen as a strategically balancing act, both condemning Hamas's extremism and opposing Israel's harsh military actions. Therefore, the closer Israel gets to a military victory in Gaza, the more concrete the prospect of a two-state solution becomes internationally.

In the context of a protracted conflict and escalating losses, the urgent need now is not just to determine who controls the ground, but to find a viable and sustainable political solution. It is impossible to ignore the fact that Israel's military operations are taking place under conditions of urgent humanitarian crisis: infrastructure is destroyed, medical and food supplies are disrupted, and hundreds of thousands of civilians in Gaza are living in severe insecurity.

A peaceful solution cannot simply be the end of conflict; it must include civilian reconstruction, the guarantee of human rights, and the restoration of trust between the parties. This requires a clear commitment not only from the forces on the ground, but also from the international community, especially influential nations, to build a legitimate, viable, and comprehensive post-conflict mechanism.

Hung Anh (Contributor)

Source: https://baothanhhoa.vn/mot-cuoc-chien-nhieu-mat-tran-259375.htm