Why Israel is Not Fighting To Defeat Hamas

Netanyahu claims the war in Gaza has been waged to defeat Hamas. That was never the purpose. It is a tool for Netanyahu to stay in power and for Ben-Gvir and Smotrich to achieve their dreams.

Today is 600 days since October 7^th, and this horrible war is still raging on. The Israeli government presents the war in Gaza as a military effort to defeat Hamas and restore Israeli security. But this is misleading. A victory in Gaza would require a very different approach, which combines military tools with diplomatic ones. Rather the war as it is being fought, serves as a tool for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cling to power amid a fragile coalition. Central to maintaining this coalition are far-right figures like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose visions of occupation, resettlement, and demographic transformation of Gaza shape Israel’s strategy. Netanyahu depends on them for the survival of his coalition. That has shaped the strategy, which is more political than military and is sorely lacking in diplomatic vision as a result.

Rather than aiming for a clear military victory, the war reflects a broader agenda: prolonging conflict to reshape Gaza’s population and territory in ways that make any viable Palestinian state impossible. That satisfies Netanyahu’s base and his allies. Netanyahu’s political survival depends on accommodating these hardline demands, ensuring the war continues not just as a fight against Hamas, but as a campaign to consolidate control and silence Palestinian aspirations—no matter the human cost.

Netanyahu’s Political Calculus

More than 600 days into the war in Gaza, the conflict shows no sign of ending, and questions about its connection to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival have only intensified. What began as a military confrontation has evolved into a prolonged political struggle, with the war serving as a tool to preserve Netanyahu’s fragile right-wing coalition and maintain his grip on power.

Among Netanyahu’s supporters, the refusal to agree to a cease-fire remains framed as a necessary posture—crippling Hamas is seen as essential to securing a stronger position at the negotiating table. Yet critics argue the war’s drawn-out nature reflects a deliberate choice to extend the conflict, rally nationalist support, and distract from mounting domestic pressures that threaten Netanyahu’s leadership.

A central piece of this political calculus is Netanyahu’s government’s ongoing resistance to a full, independent investigation into the catastrophic Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Despite repeated calls from Israel’s attorney general and opposition leaders for a state commission of inquiry—with broad powers and political independence—the cabinet has rejected such probes. Instead, it favors a “special” commission with limited authority and political appointments, which critics say is designed to shield Netanyahu and his allies from accountability.

This refusal to confront the failures that led to the October 7 disaster helps explain why Netanyahu has little incentive to end the war swiftly. A full inquiry could expose government missteps and political negligence, threatening the prime minister’s standing and potentially destabilizing his coalition. By keeping the war ongoing, Netanyahu delays scrutiny and maintains a rally-around-the-flag effect that bolsters his support among right-wing factions demanding Hamas’s destruction.

Public opinion reflects this tension. A recent Channel 12 poll found that 55 percent of Israelis believe Netanyahu cares more about holding onto power than about winning the war or freeing hostages. Over half of respondents also cited political reasons as the main obstacle to securing a new hostage deal. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s approval ratings remain under pressure, and speculation persists that his government might seek to postpone elections by invoking a national emergency—an idea he publicly denies but which half of Israelis consider possible.

Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, has a well-documented pattern of postponing critical decisions to keep his options open. The Gaza war has become a continuation of this approach, as Netanyahu balances military operations with the delicate politics of a coalition where far-right factions demand Hamas’s destruction and threaten to collapse the government if their demands aren’t met.

The human cost has been staggering—tens of thousands of Gazans have died, and the international community’s condemnation of Israel’s tactics has grown, including increased unease from the United States. Despite this, Netanyahu continues to push back against pressure, implicitly criticizing President Biden’s warnings and opposing any moves toward Palestinian statehood, which he describes as a “terror haven.”

On the domestic front, the war’s extension complicates efforts to secure the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. While protests demand quick negotiations—even if that means accepting conditions that allow Hamas to survive—Netanyahu’s camp insists that only a position of military strength can guarantee their safe return. Critics see this stance as a political maneuver to hold together a coalition vulnerable to collapse and avoid early elections that polls suggest would cost Netanyahu power.

The slow pace of military advances, particularly around Hamas’s last stronghold in Rafah, feeds this political stalemate. Analysts argue that Netanyahu hesitates to end the war quickly, fearing the political fallout from inquiries into the government’s handling of the October 7 raid that sparked the conflict.

In the resulting power vacuum, Hamas has found opportunities to regroup, and Gaza’s civil order has worsened, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. Netanyahu’s rejection of international calls to hand Gaza’s control to the Palestinian Authority—seen as a stabilizing force—speaks to the political cost of such a move within his coalition. Instead, some far-right elements openly discuss settling Gaza with Israeli civilians, signaling ambitions well beyond defeating Hamas.

Viewed through this lens, the Gaza war is as much about politics as it is about military objectives. Netanyahu’s strategy appears focused less on outright defeating Hamas and more on preserving his political coalition, consolidating power, and reshaping Gaza’s future in line with his government’s right-wing agenda. The war’s enduring toll and global backlash underscore the intertwined nature of politics and warfare shaping Israel’s path today.

Netanyahu’s Role in Prolonging the War

A growing chorus of experts, officials, and public opinion points to a harsh reality: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging the Gaza war largely for political survival. President Joe Biden has openly suggested this possibility, stating, “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion” when asked if Netanyahu seeks to extend the conflict to maintain his fragile coalition. Within Israel, opposition leaders like Yair Lapid have accused Netanyahu of “unnecessarily prolonging the war” to manage his political troubles and appease hardline coalition partners who oppose ceasefires.

This political motivation is echoed in public sentiment. A recent Channel 12 poll found that 55% of Israelis believe Netanyahu cares more about holding onto power than about winning the war or securing the release of hostages. More than half of respondents see political considerations as the main obstacle to reaching new hostage deals or ceasefires. Additionally, half of the population suspects Netanyahu might attempt to delay or cancel upcoming elections by citing a national emergency—a move he publicly denies but which fuels distrust.

The repeated cycle of rejecting ceasefire proposals and delaying hostage negotiations reveals a pattern in which the war’s prolongation serves to consolidate Netanyahu’s power domestically, even as it fuels ongoing human suffering and international condemnation. This political calculus undermines prospects for peace and prolongs a conflict that has devastated Gaza and strained Israel’s own social fabric.

Understanding this dynamic is critical to grasping why the war continues without clear progress and why efforts to end the conflict face such uphill battles amid competing political interests.

Netanyahu’s Gamble—“Buying Quiet” by Propping Up Hamas

For over a decade, Benjamin Netanyahu pursued a calculated, if deeply flawed, strategy toward Gaza: keep Hamas strong enough to govern and maintain a fragile peace, but weak enough not to threaten Israel outright. This approach hinged on a risky gamble—allowing, and at times encouraging, millions of dollars in Qatari cash to flow into Gaza, effectively propping up Hamas’s government.

Just weeks before the devastating October 7, 2023 attacks, Mossad chief David Barnea met with Qatari officials in Doha to confirm Israel’s ongoing acceptance of these payments. The money—funneled through Qatar—helped pay government salaries, fuel power plants, and support civilian life in Gaza. Israeli intelligence officers even escorted Qatari diplomats across borders to deliver suitcases stuffed with cash.

The official rationale was pragmatic: the Qatari funds helped maintain a tense calm by preventing a humanitarian collapse and ensuring Hamas remained focused on governance rather than full-scale war. But critics saw it differently. They dubbed the policy “buying quiet,” accusing Netanyahu of prioritizing short-term stability—and his own political survival—over Israel’s long-term security.

This policy was part of a broader political calculation. Netanyahu and his allies viewed Hamas as a strategic counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, led by Mahmoud Abbas. As far back as 2012, Netanyahu reportedly told journalists that keeping Hamas strong would reduce pressure to negotiate a Palestinian state. Far-right politicians like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly called Hamas an “asset” and dismissed the Palestinian Authority as a “burden.”

Inside Israel’s government and intelligence circles, dissent simmered. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman resigned in 2018, condemning the policy as “buying short-term peace at the price of serious damage to long-term national security.” Mossad officials expressed concerns that Qatari funds—although intended for humanitarian purposes—freed Hamas’s own budget to finance military operations. Israeli intelligence assessments concluded that Qatar was secretly channeling money to Hamas’s military wing, even as Israeli officials continued to greenlight the official cash transfers.

Despite warnings and internal criticism, Netanyahu rejected calls for a more confrontational stance, preferring containment and hoping the uneasy equilibrium would hold. This approach left Israel vulnerable: Hamas grew stronger and more prepared, culminating in the devastating attacks in 2023.

The consequences of this policy are stark. Netanyahu’s gamble to “buy quiet” and use Hamas as a strategic tool to divide Palestinians not only failed to prevent bloodshed but arguably enabled it. The wounds inflicted on Israel and Gaza will take years to heal, raising profound questions about the cost of such political calculations.

From Past Strategy to Present Reality—Hamas as a Political Tool for Netanyahu

Netanyahu’s decade-long gamble to prop up Hamas through Qatari cash and indirect dealings wasn’t just a failed security strategy—it was a political calculation that has shaped his approach to Gaza and the Palestinians ever since. Then, as now, Netanyahu viewed Hamas not only as an adversary but as a tool to maintain his grip on power and to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state.

By keeping Hamas strong enough to govern Gaza, Netanyahu ensured a continued division between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas struggles to gain traction. This division has long been a cornerstone of his political strategy. As far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich bluntly put it, “Hamas is an asset,” while the Palestinian Authority is a “burden.” Netanyahu’s private remarks to allies echoed this sentiment, suggesting that a strong Hamas reduces pressure to negotiate a Palestinian state.

Today, amid the bloodiest conflict in Israel’s history, that same dynamic persists. Netanyahu’s government continues to reject ceasefires and hostage deals that might empower Palestinian unity or lead to concessions. Instead, the war’s prolongation serves to rally nationalist support at home and sideline peace initiatives. The calculus that once led Netanyahu to “buy quiet” with Qatari money now underpins his broader political survival strategy: keep Hamas contained but unbroken, use the ongoing conflict to justify hardline policies, and prevent any progress toward Palestinian statehood.

This continuity reveals how Netanyahu’s past policies have not only shaped the current conflict but also how his political survival remains tied to the reality he helped create. The same forces that allowed Hamas to grow stronger now complicate any path to peace, leaving both Israelis and Palestinians trapped in a cycle of violence and political stalemate.

Military Strategy That Avoids Defeating Hamas

For all these reasons, the military strategy is not to defeat Hamas. But just to weaken it. T

he reality of the military campaign in Gaza reveals a cycle of costly urban battles, partial territorial gains, and strategic withdrawals that undermine any prospect of a swift, decisive victory.

Over the course of the war, the IDF has repeatedly entered heavily populated Gaza urban centers—such as Gaza City and Khan Yunis—only to withdraw after facing fierce resistance and sustaining significant casualties. This pattern of assault, withdrawal, and re-assault has frustrated many within the Israeli military, who argue that the approach is inefficient and prolongs the conflict. The complexity of urban warfare against a well-entrenched, decentralized adversary like Hamas means that clearing and holding territory is slow, dangerous, and costly. The IDF currently controls roughly 40% of Gaza, far from complete domination, and recent withdrawals have left only a brigade securing key corridors, reflecting operational limits and tactical recalibrations.

This cyclical fighting has drawn criticism from some IDF reservists and commanders who oppose partial withdrawals that cede ground after heavy fighting, arguing it wastes soldiers' lives and allows Hamas to regroup. Protests by reservist soldiers against withdrawals have highlighted internal military dissent and frustration with the strategy.

Further complicating matters is the IDF’s cautious stance toward launching an all-out assault on Hamas’s last major stronghold in Rafah. While Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly framed capturing Rafah as essential for “total victory,” the military has yet to prepare for the massive population displacement and international fallout that would follow. Such an operation would require coordination with Egypt and face intense international and American opposition, leading to delays and tactical hesitation.

Recent plans, like the ongoing Gideon’s Chariots operation, aim to control about 75% of Gaza—forcing nearly two million residents into just 25% of the territory concentrated in three zones. This approach stops short of full military conquest, focusing instead on containment and demographic reshaping rather than eradicating Hamas itself. The absence of a clear strategy for governance or reconciliation post-occupation highlights the political motivations behind the military campaign.

In effect, the IDF’s repeated incursions and withdrawals, combined with targeted raids and airstrikes, reflect a war of attrition that devastates civilian infrastructure and population centers but struggles to deliver a knockout blow to Hamas’s military capacity. This protracted approach aligns with political calculations favoring prolonged conflict to maintain domestic coalition support and international leverage, rather than a swift, conclusive victory.

The toll on Israeli soldiers is real and growing, and internal critiques of the strategy underscore the difficulty of urban combat against a determined insurgency embedded within civilian populations. The repeated cycle of gaining and relinquishing ground not only prolongs the war but also fuels humanitarian disaster and undermines prospects for peace.

Territorial Control and the Implications of Ethnic Cleansing

To understand the deeper ambitions shaping the Gaza conflict, it’s crucial to recognize the influence of far-right figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich within Netanyahu’s coalition. Both men are known for their unapologetic nationalist and expansionist worldviews. Ben-Gvir, with his history of provocative actions in Palestinian neighborhoods, and Smotrich, a vocal advocate for annexation and Jewish sovereignty over all of historic Palestine, represent the ideological backbone that keeps Netanyahu’s fragile government intact.

Their presence in government isn’t incidental; it’s essential for coalition survival. Netanyahu relies on their support to maintain a parliamentary majority, which means their vision for Gaza and the West Bank carries significant weight in shaping policy and military strategy. This coalition dynamic pushes the government toward policies that go beyond military objectives and veer into territorial expansion and demographic engineering.

Historically, Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank has involved settlement expansion, strict control over movement and resources, and a patchwork of military and civilian governance designed to entrench Israeli presence and limit Palestinian autonomy. The Gaza Strip, although Israel disengaged its settlements in 2005, remains under tight siege and control, with restrictions on goods, people, and access effectively isolating its population.

The ongoing conflict presents an opportunity—or a pretext—for advancing deeper Israeli control over Gaza. Plans to seize up to 75% of Gaza and concentrate nearly two million Palestinians into cramped zones echo a broader strategy of territorial fragmentation and demographic manipulation. This suggests not merely a military campaign but a systematic effort to reshape the geography and population distribution in ways that serve Israeli strategic and ideological goals.

In this context, the concept of ethnic cleansing gains disturbing relevance. Ethnic cleansing isn’t just about outright forcible removal; it includes the destruction of homes, infrastructure, and livelihoods that make return impossible or unlivable. The sustained bombardment and destruction of Gaza’s neighborhoods, combined with forced displacements into limited “humanitarian islands,” create conditions that effectively strip Palestinians of their ability to maintain a normal life or envision a future in their homeland.

Several experts and human rights organizations have warned that these outcomes are not accidental but foreseeable consequences of Israeli military and political strategies. The patterns of repeated destruction, population transfers, and denial of basic rights fit the criteria of ethnic cleansing as understood in international law and historical precedent.

Far from being a side effect, this process appears embedded in the political fabric of Netanyahu’s coalition, where Ben-Gvir and Smotrich’s ideological imperatives actively shape policies that entrench Israeli control while eroding Palestinian presence. The war in Gaza, therefore, is not just a fight against Hamas but part of a broader campaign to redraw borders and demographics on Israel’s terms—at devastating cost to the Palestinian population.

What Defeating Hamas Would Look Like—and Why It’s Not Happening

A genuine military defeat of Hamas would require not just dismantling its military capabilities but also replacing its governing role in Gaza with a viable alternative. This means having a clear, credible “day after” plan—an organized framework for security, governance, and reconstruction that can stabilize Gaza once the fighting ends. Without such a plan, any military victory risks collapsing into chaos, allowing militant groups to regroup and the cycle of violence to continue.

Despite numerous proposals from think tanks, international actors, and even parts of the Biden administration, no cohesive or authoritative plan has emerged. Various “day after” blueprints float ideas such as multinational security forces, private contractors, or Palestinian councils to govern Gaza temporarily. Yet these remain fragmented and lack a power player willing to lead and enforce them. Even Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposals are vague at best, often amounting to a continued Israeli military presence without a clear civilian governance solution.

Recent developments reveal the stark reality behind the “day after” debate. The Israeli cabinet has discussed handing over humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza to private American firms secured by the IDF—a move widely recognized as the thin edge of a military government. Former defense minister Yoav Gallant warned that without a genuine governing alternative to replace the IDF on the ground, Israel is heading toward a prolonged military occupation that will cost lives and destabilize the region.

This trajectory is championed by hardline coalition members like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has openly called for the IDF to take control of Gaza’s humanitarian aid and has advocated for the “voluntary departure” of Palestinians from the area. Smotrich’s influence is clear: his demands have shaped government policy, including the continuation of the war, rejection of hostage release deals, and escalation of military operations. His worldview, shared by other far-right figures in the coalition, centers on preventing any viable Palestinian statehood and reshaping Gaza through demographic and territorial control.

Netanyahu’s government appears to be moving toward a future in which Gaza is effectively under Israeli military control, with limited civilian governance, no meaningful Palestinian authority, and no prospect for Palestinian self-determination. Former military leaders and analysts warn this could become a permanent occupation, a situation fraught with security risks and moral costs—a “catastrophe” that reverses decades of progress and peace efforts.

In this light, the reason a full military defeat of Hamas remains elusive is not merely tactical but deeply political. Without a credible post-conflict governance plan accepted by all stakeholders—and with key coalition members actively opposing Palestinian autonomy—the war grinds on. Hamas, though weakened, remains the de facto authority because no alternative has been established, and the vacuum of governance continues to fuel instability.

Maintaining a weakened but intact Hamas serves political and strategic interests: it avoids the burdens of full occupation, keeps Netanyahu’s coalition intact by satisfying right-wing demands, and preserves leverage in negotiations over hostages and ceasefires. Ultimately, the absence of a clear, viable “day after” plan ensures that the conflict—and the status quo of occupation and fragmentation—will persist, forestalling any hope of a Palestinian state and prolonging suffering on all sides.

Conclusion

The evidence is undeniable: this war in Gaza is less about defeating Hamas and more about Netanyahu’s desperate bid to cling to power. His government’s actions reveal a cynical calculus—prolonging conflict, ignoring the catastrophic humanitarian toll, and using military strategy as a tool to maintain a fragile coalition rather than to achieve any meaningful security or peace.

Gaza’s civilians pay the heaviest price in this cynical game. Endless destruction, displacement, and suffering continue with no end in sight, while Netanyahu sidelines any real plan for Gaza’s future. The absence of a credible “day after” strategy isn’t a mere oversight—it’s part of a broader effort to avoid accountability and prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state, all to secure his political survival.

The harsh truth is that Netanyahu’s political ambitions have become an obstacle to peace, trapping both Israelis and Palestinians in a cycle of violence and despair. A lasting solution requires more than bombs and blockades; it demands a diplomatic vision that offers Palestinians dignity and stability. But Netanyahu’s coalition, driven by ideological hardliners and unwilling to compromise, will never allow it.

This war exposes the dangerous consequences of leadership driven by self-preservation instead of statesmanship. It demands that we look past the official narratives and confront the political cynicism fueling this conflict—before the cost in human lives grows even higher.