© ReutersTear gas attack, Gaza
Israel might either reoccupy Gaza, launch another massive military assault or lift the siege.When Palestinians launched the
Great March of Return on March 30,
Israel sensed an opportunity for confrontation. It started sniping down one unarmed protester after the other while blasting propaganda about how these Palestinians constituted a "threat" to its security and how it had the "right to defend itself".
To date, Israeli soldiers have
killed more than 120 peaceful Palestinian protesters. But the Israelis did not stop there.
As international public opinion swung dangerously against them, the Israeli occupation forces began to respond to the peaceful demonstrations
by targeting armed resistance groups in Gaza, bombing their training grounds, arms storage, tunnels and logistics capabilities, as well as assassinating several of their members.The Israeli army had no justification for these attacks; it simply wanted to
enforce a new reality on the ground:
That peaceful resistance would be met with brute force and any escalation would be followed by a broader military assault.
After some deliberation, a military response
was launched from Gaza. Many within the armed resistance groups were convinced that Israel should not be allowed to impose this new reality on the ground and should be shown that there will be a response to its military assaults.
What this episode shows, however, is that it is increasingly difficult for Israel to maintain the status quo. Its strategy of "Gaza will not live and will not die" no longer seems to be working. It fears that small improvements and patches will no longer appease the Palestinians.
And it is in this context that Israel seems to face three options in Gaza: reoccupation, another war, or lifting of the siege.ReoccupationThere have been some voices of the extreme right in the Israeli government, military and intellectual elite who have been
calling for a reoccupation of Gaza. They believe that
establishing military control over the Strip again could remove the threat it poses.They call for taking over the entire Strip with troops on the ground and
carrying out a comprehensive eradication operation against Gaza's armed groups. After that is fulfilled, Gaza would supposedly be handed over to a third party, such as the Palestinian Authority or an international body, to address and administer the humanitarian needs of the population.
Those who advocate for this solution know full well that
they are looking at a bloody disaster. Israel will undoubtedly meet severe resistance in Gaza which would lead to dozens, if not hundreds of Israeli soldiers killed. There is nothing more painful for Israel than to have its soldiers return from the battlefield in black body bags.
If it reoccupies the Strip, the Israeli state will then
have to provide the minimum level of food, water and electricity to the economically exhausted population. That would put a heavy strain on the government budget.
The death toll that such a military operation would exact on Gaza's civilian population would mean
a harrowing defeat on the international stage for the Israeli narrative. International outrage at Israeli crimes is growing day by day and it will eventually reach a breaking point.
It is important to mention here that this option is not very popular within Tel Aviv's decision-making circles, whether in the government, army or intelligence because they realise just how steep the price they would pay is.
A crushing warThis option of another major military assault on Gaza is popular with influential political and military figures in Israel as
it is perceived to be less costly than reoccupying it. It seems to fulfill the urgent need to come up with a new deterrent against Hamas after its recent missile attacks on Israeli settlements near Gaza.
Israel has grown accustomed to
launching an attack on Gaza every few years, as part of its "mowing the grass" policy. Whenever Hamas' capabilities - whether human or logistical - grow, a need arises to cut them back through air attacks or field assassinations that restore Israel's deterrent for a few more years.
After the several operations Israel launched between 2006 and 2014, it may well be about to launch another one. In spite of their conviction that this option is needed soon,
high-ranking generals are leery of it because they know the Palestinian armed groups have rebuilt their capabilities and prepared their ranks over the past four years.
A war within Gaza would not be a picnic, but they see it as a necessary evil or a "no choice war".Complete disengagementThis option would see Israel lifting its siege on the Gaza Strip economically and administratively. It would also include the construction of a seaport or airport under Israel's tight security control and international guarantees.
This option takes the burden of supporting Gaza's two million inhabitants off Israel's shoulders, but its strategic implications make the Israeli leadership shy away from it. It would make the creation of a Palestinian entity with state-like features feasible, without it having to present the customary "instruments of obedience" to Israel, as the West Bank does.
In addition, there wouldn't be enough guarantees that Hamas would not take advantage of these new port facilities to bring in weapons that may well upset the military status quo.
As the situation on the ground in Gaza changes and Israeli threats against Palestinians increase, all three options are possible. Israel will make its detailed calculations on each one of them, but in the end, developments on the ground will determine which way events unfold.
Dr Adnan Abu Amer is the head of the Political Science Department at the University of the Ummah in Gaza.
Comment: Israel didn't just 'sense' an opportunity, it planned and executed it, leaving over 120 dead Palestinians and hundreds of injured men, women and children, reporters, and humanitarians in its wake. It's nice this author thinks Israel has three options, and oops, a couple of them are not so beneficial. Palestinians, on the other hand, have no options except to die in mass to draw attention to their plight. In the broader context, Israel's 'hate on' for Iran might just solve the whole Palestinian issue permanently in an unfortunate, but timely crossfire if properly orchestrated. That would be 'option four'.