An Israeli strategist has publicly admitted Israel’s failure and paralysis in the face of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza after over a year and a half of brutal war, declaring that all the options before Tel Aviv range “from bad to worse.”
Efraim Inbar, head of the Strategy, Diplomacy, and Security Program at Shalem College and senior researcher at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), wrote that:
“The war on Gaza has produced many illusions. The latest is the belief that, the day after the war, we will see a politically stable regime in Gaza—one capable of monopolising the use of force and suppressing any resistance to Israeli interests.”
He noted that such a scenario—where a centralised government exists in Gaza that agrees to prevent any operations against Israel—might be desirable for Tel Aviv, but is wildly unrealistic for several reasons.
Inbar explained, in an article published on Israel’s Channel 12 and translated by Sunna Files, that:
“When military power confronts political reality, Israel’s capacity to reshape the Middle East is extremely limited.”He cited Tel Aviv’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which failed to install a puppet government, as a historical lesson. He also referenced the U.S. failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Soviet collapse in Afghanistan, despite employing far more aggressive military tactics than the U.S.
Even if the war manages to eliminate Hamas’s military capabilities and removes its leadership from Gaza—just as the PLO was expelled from Lebanon in 1982—it won’t magically turn Gaza into a “reformist” state. Inbar states that so long as Palestinians remain ideologically opposed to Zionism, any use of military force will fall short.
“The deep-rooted enmity between the Palestinian national identity and the Zionist project sets a permanent course of resistance,” he said.“Gaza’s education system has instilled a religiously grounded rejection of Jewish occupation and a potent desire for revenge.”
He pointed to the 7 October operation as a stark and horrifying example of this reality:
“For the foreseeable future, wherever there are Palestinians, there will be resistance to Tel Aviv.”
The idea that Gaza will be disarmed or neutralised “the day after” the war is wishful thinking. Inbar further dismissed the idea of deploying Arab or international forces in Gaza, noting that:
-
- There’s little appetite for confronting Hamas
-
- No state is willing to take responsibility for the devastated Strip
-
- Gaza, with its people and ruins, holds no attractive strategic value
-
- Gaza’s lack of a stable political infrastructure
-
- Investor fears amid continued instability
-
- The absence of long-term strategic clarity
Inbar also dismissed the option of returning the Palestinian Authority (PA) to Gaza, despite it being the West’s preferred alternative.
“The PA is weak, and its curriculum glorifies resistance and promotes hatred of Israel. It pays salaries to prisoners and their families and cooperates with the Israeli army only in limited contexts.”
He concluded that the PA is not a viable solution either.
As for re-occupying Gaza or imposing direct military rule, Inbar warned it would only deepen Israel’s internal divisions.
“It is unwise to burden an already fractured Israeli society with another fault line.”
Instead, Tel Aviv may have to accept a new regional reality:
“In the absence of a willing authority to take control of Gaza, chaos will prevail.”
The final takeaway, he says, is sobering:
“Israel is doomed to live beside hostile neighbours for the foreseeable future. There is no strategy that guarantees the end of resistance.”
