After more than a year of intense conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has presented a new strategy to bring an end to the war in the Gaza Strip: a plan that aims to increase pressure on Hamas to the point of forcing them back to the negotiating table. This approach leverages recent battlefield successes in Gaza and Lebanon, and draws inspiration from a proposal put forth by a group of retired Israeli military officers led by Major General (Retired) Giora Eiland, known as the ‘Generals’ Plan’.
While the concept itself offers a glimmer of hope for resolving the conflict, the practicality and ethical implications of the ‘Generals’ Plan’ remain highly questionable. Even if Israel manages to weaken Hamas to the point of returning them to negotiations, the reality is that a purely military solution cannot address the underlying political complexities of the situation. A political solution is essential, and so far, Netanyahu has offered only vague promises about Hamas’ future, without outlining a concrete plan for Gaza’s governance.
The ‘Generals’ Plan’ proposes a drastic measure: the evacuation of civilians from designated areas in Gaza, followed by a complete cutoff of food and water supplies. Once civilians are removed, those remaining would be considered combatants, making them legitimate military targets. This approach, essentially a ‘surrender or starve’ tactic, aims to force Hamas personnel into surrender or a final stand. While Eiland, the plan’s architect, insists that this is the only way to break Hamas, observers are near-unanimous in their condemnation of the plan, citing its catastrophic potential. The Associated Press has reported that few civilians have left the targeted areas, despite Eiland’s insistence that they will be evacuated and face consequences if they don’t leave.
One of the most significant flaws in the ‘Generals’ Plan’ is the fundamental assumption that all civilians would be willing, or even able, to evacuate. The reality for Gazans is dire. They have endured a year-long war where virtually every town has been attacked, including so-called safe zones. Fear of returning home after evacuating, echoing memories of the 1948 Israel-Arab War known as the ‘Naqba’, is a major obstacle. The ‘Generals’ Plan’ does not offer any guarantees for Gazans to return to their homes, further exacerbating their fears.
Even if the plan were to be modified to allow for eventual return, the practical challenges remain substantial. There is simply nowhere for Gazans to go, neither within Gaza nor outside. Egypt has refused to accept them, and Israel is unlikely to do so. The situation creates a sense of inescapable despair, with Gazans facing the grim prospect of displacement or potential death.
The implementation of the ‘Generals’ Plan’ has sparked intense debate about its ethical and legal implications. Critics argue that it amounts to a form of ethnic cleansing and constitutes war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is already investigating Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes, including using starvation as a weapon of war.
While the initial plan appears to be undergoing revisions, there is still considerable uncertainty about the future of Gaza. The situation remains precarious, with concerns about the possibility of further displacement, potential war crimes, and the long-term impact on the region. The direction that Netanyahu will ultimately choose, and the repercussions of his decisions, are yet to be fully understood.