‘Destroying Hamas’ is a catchy soundbite but it’s not a practical objective
On 7 October – three weeks ago this weekend – Hamas launched a vicious, deadly and barbaric attack on Israel.
Hamas is no match for Israel’s military capability, and the world watched in trepidation as Israel mobilised over 350,000 reservists and prepared for swift and decisive military retribution.
However, three weeks later, despite regular threats from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli ground offensive has yet to materialise.
Palestinians gather at the site of Israeli strikes on houses
Why has Israel’s fiery rhetoric not (yet) translated into decisive military action?
Hamas might not match Israel’s military might, but its attack against Israel was well planned and conducted without apparent warning – despite Israel’s renowned intelligence services.
The atrocities committed by Hamas fighters on 7 October were inhuman and senseless and Hamas would have known that such action would provoke violent Israeli vengeance.
By planning to seize hundreds of hostages, Hamas was planning to temper Israel’s response options, while also attracting the attention of the international community and the world’s media to the plight of the Palestinians.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Israel ‘preparing ground’ for incursion
Gilad Shalit – an Israeli Defence Force soldier – was taken hostage by Hamas in 2006 and only released over five years later in 2011 – Hamas knows that hostages have value.
Israel holds over 50,000 Palestinian prisoners – many of whom are linked to Hamas – and Hamas has demanded the release of all of these in return for the Israeli hostages.
But why delay Israel’s ground offensive? Given the detailed planning involved in the 7 October attack, it is very likely that Hamas would have been well prepared for an Israeli “invasion” – a Hamas trap could have left the Israeli military badly mauled.
Iran has been providing weapons to Hamas (and Hezbollah) for decades, so Israeli counter-attacking forces would have faced a deadly assortment of anti-tank missiles, mines and booby traps, all designed to inflict further damage on both the IDF soldiers and their reputations.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
IDF ‘preparing on all fronts’
‘Destroying Hamas’ is not a practical objective
Regardless, Prime Minister Netanyahu was angry and looking for a rapid military response. He promised that Hamas would be destroyed and that a ground offensive would be launched.
While his forces mobilised and military preparations were undertaken, an extensive bombing campaign was launched to tackle the huge Master Target List of known Hamas infrastructure, leadership and weapons.
However, military force requires a clear objective – “destroying Hamas” is a catchy soundbite for the media but is not a practical objective from a military perspective.
Read more:
Israeli military says it is expanding ground operations
Israel accuses Hamas of launching attacks from inside Gaza hospitals
A bombing campaign might destroy the majority of Hamas’s military capability, but in so doing the Israelis have also inflicted huge casualties on the Palestinian population.
At the time of writing, Israel claims to have suffered around 1,400 casualties on 7 October, but since then the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Authority claims that more than 7,000 Palestinians have been killed.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Civilians in Gaza are in desperate need – and are running out of key resources
A ground offensive would involve greater Israeli casualties, would take time, would exacerbate the humanitarian situation, and would inevitably increase the risk to those hostages still alive.
Increasing diplomatic pressure on Israel
And time is not on Israel’s side. Every day that goes by there is increasing international diplomatic pressure on Israel to curb its military response, and Israel is heavily reliant on Western support both economically and militarily.
And, a recent poll of Israelis showed that a minority support a ground offensive.
Despite Mr Netanyahu’s anger, even Israelis recognise that there is no military solution to the regional frictions.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
The dark shadow of Iran continues to exploit historical frictions to inflame passions, and the international community’s focus on taking sides has distracted from the core focus which should be on saving the lives of the innocent victims of this conflict.
There does appear a glimmer of hope that international pressure will temper Israel’s military options and although more “raids” will be expected, it looks increasingly likely that the more extreme Israeli military options are gradually being curtailed.
But, even when this immediate crisis has subsided, without political engagement, dialogue, negotiation and compromise, this will be nothing more than a temporary respite – perhaps days, maybe years – before the violence erupts once again.
World
US defence secretary signals dramatic shift in American military policy away from Europe, warning allies about ‘stark strategic realities’
US troops will not be used to secure the peace in Ukraine following any ceasefire deal with Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump’s new defence secretary has declared, as he signalled a dramatic shift in American foreign and defence policy away from Europe.
Pete Hegseth also said it is “unrealistic” to think Ukraine can return to its pre-2014 borders and he ruled out NATO membership as way to guarantee Kyiv’s security.
This will be a huge blow for Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The interventions came at the opening of a meeting of allies in Brussels on Wednesday.
Follow live: Ukraine war latest
Defence secretaries Pete Hegseth and John Healey meeting in Brussels.
Pic: Reuters/Johanna Geron/Pool
Mr Hegseth said Washington must focus on the threat posed by China and securing its own borders.
He added: “Stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.
“As the United States shifts its attention to these threats, European allies must lead from the front,” Mr Hegseth said in opening remarks at the gathering of NATO and non-NATO countries that are providing military support to Ukraine.
NATO spending
Mr Trump – a long-time critic of the alliance, which he sees as containing freeloaders that benefit from American military strength without investing in their own security – has said all NATO allies should increase defence spending to 5% of GDP.
This is more than double the current target. The UK is only spending 2.3%.
While still supportive of NATO, Mr Hegseth warned that America’s patience was limited.
“Our transatlantic alliance has endured for decades. And we fully expect it will sustained for generations more. But this won’t just happen,” he said.
He continued: “It will require our European allies to step into the arena and take ownership of conventional security on this continent.
“The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defence partnership with Europe.
“Our relationship will prioritise empowering Europe to own responsibility for its security.”
Ukraine-Russia war
Mr Hegseth also had strong words about Russia’s war in Ukraine, which he said “must end”.
Speaking frankly, he dismissed a fundamental Ukrainian goal to recapture all its territory – including Crimea and swathes of the Donbas that were seized by Russia in 2014 when Mr Putin first invaded his neighbour. This aim had previously been backed by the UK and other allies.
Read more from Sky News:
High-speed train collision in Germany
FBI uncovers secret JFK assassination files
Gaza truce in danger of ending Saturday
“We want… a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” he said.
“Chasing this illusory goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.”
The US defence secretary said that a durable peace must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war won’t begin again – but he made clear that the US would not be part of that effort on the ground and it could not be a NATO operation.
It was not immediately clear, however, whether the US military may help to provide protection from a distance.
“These security guarantees should not be provided through NATO membership, but must instead be backed by capable European and non-European troops,” the US defence secretary said.
“If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission and not covered under Article 5. There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact.”
Pete Hegseth stands with German defence minister Boris Pistorius.
Pic: Reuters/Johanna Geron/Pool
Article 5 of NATO says an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all.
Read more: What is Article 5?
Mr Hegseth continued: “To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine.”
His words will be a significant setback for Kyiv.
President Zelenskyy told Sky News last week that any peacekeeping force that did not include a US element would be a “major mistake”, signalling that he did not believe European militaries alone could deter Moscow.
The retreat of the US from its leadership role in Ukraine was clear in the choreography of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting – an alignment of allies gathered together by Washington under Joe Biden and his defence secretary Loyd Austin after Russia launched its full-scale invasion almost exactly three years ago.
Future of European security
The regular meetings have until now always been chaired by the US.
Wednesday’s meeting, however, was led by John Healey, the UK defence secretary.
Mr Hegseth made clear that European allies would need to step up and take on much more of the effort to provide Ukraine with weapons and non-military support.
“Safeguarding European security is an imperative for European members of NATO. As part of this, Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine,” he said.
This means donating more ammunition, expanding Europe’s defence industrial base and rallying the public to be willing to respond to the threat the continent faces.
“Part of this is speaking frankly with your people about how this threat can only be met by spending more on defence and investing strategically,” Mr Hegseth said.
“Increasing your commitment to your own security is a down payment for the future.”
Earlier, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said he agreed with US president Donald Trump on the need for Washington and European allies to share the burden of military aid for Ukraine more equally.
World
Israeli PM says Gaza ceasefire ‘will be terminated’ if hostages are not returned by Hamas on Saturday
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports10 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway