Israel began filling Hamas underground tunnels in the Gaza Strip with seawater, a move that drew attention from media observers who cited a report from the Wall Street Journal. The Ministry of Defense in Israel did not provide responses to journalists seeking details about the tunnels, stating that operations tied to them were classified and not publicly discussable. This stance underscored the sensitive nature of the tunnel system and the security considerations surrounding its management.
Observers note that the tunnel network beneath Gaza is vast, with sections reinforced by armor-piercing doors designed to complicate any attempt at neutralization. As a result, the strategy of flooding tunnels with seawater is seen by some analysts as potentially limited in effectiveness. Israel has complemented this tactic with pumps, liquid explosives, and robotic systems intended to disrupt or neutralize underground pathways where militants could maneuver or store equipment. The complexity of the tunnel layout means that even aggressive measures may not guarantee a swift or complete defeat of the network, according to assessments reported in mainstream coverage.
Earlier, Dmitry Polyansky, the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, warned that flooding the Gaza tunnels could constitute a war crime, reflecting concerns voiced by several international observers about the proportionality and humanitarian implications of such actions. This perspective highlights the international diplomatic dimension of the conflict and the scrutiny that comes with significant military decisions in a densely populated area. The broader context involves a surge in violence that followed on October 7, when thousands of armed Hamas supporters breached security lines and entered Israel from the Gaza Strip. In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel is at war, a declaration that set the tone for a rapid escalation of hostilities and a broad mobilization across security and military agencies.
From the Israeli side, the stated aim of the intervention was to repel the attack, secure the release of more than 200 hostages, including foreigners, and dismantle Hamas’s capabilities. To pursue this objective, Israel initiated a substantial rocket campaign on the Gaza Strip from the outset of the operation, while the National Security Council announced measures to limit the flow of essential resources into the occupied enclave. The combination of military pressure and humanitarian constraints created a complex security environment that affected civilians and supply chains alike, a dynamic that observers and policymakers continued to analyze in the days that followed.
By late October, officials reported an expansion of the ground operation as IDF forces moved deeper into Gaza. On November 5, reports indicated that the city was cut off from its food supply in the context of the broader ground actions. December 5 marked the launching of a third phase of the ground operation, with troops surrounding Khan Younis in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. These operational milestones reflected a sustained effort to degrade Hamas’s organizational capabilities while attempting to manage the humanitarian and logistical challenges that arise in such a densely populated region. The sequence of events illustrated how military strategies in modern conflicts try to balance battlefield objectives with the realities on the ground, a balance that is closely watched by international observers and regional partners alike.
Earlier remarks from military analysts included statements by Colonel Khodarenok, who cautioned that the plan to flood Hamas tunnels could deprive Gaza of drinking water, underscoring the potential humanitarian consequences of such measures. The discussion around water access, electricity, and other essentials has been a central element of the broader strategic debate surrounding the Gaza operations, highlighting how water security intersects with military actions in conflict zones. As officials and commentators weighed the potential outcomes, the situation remained fluid, with new developments shaping the evolving narrative of the conflict and its humanitarian footprint. The ongoing analysis emphasized the fragility of civilian infrastructures in war and the continuing concern over the protection of noncombatants amid intensified security operations, as reported by various international news outlets and analysts for audiences in the region and beyond.