Former prime minister comments on Gaza security strategy
Ehud Barak, a former prime minister, recently stated that Gaza-based Hamas can only be contained through a land operation by Israeli forces, arguing that diplomacy and air power alone will not halt its activities. In remarks summarized for a broad audience, he asserted that a ground offensive would be necessary to stop Hamas, noting that Israel would act within the bounds of international law if such an operation were to proceed.
Barak made these points during a conducted interview in which he emphasized the seriousness of Hamas’s actions. He argued that the capabilities and scale of Hamas’s operations in Gaza require a different level of response than air strikes, calls from abroad, or public messaging through media outlets. He suggested that only a ground invasion could effectively disrupt Hamas’s command and logistic networks, and he stressed that Israel would maintain compliance with international legal norms throughout any such operation.
Context for these remarks lies in Hamas’s attack on October 7, when thousands of rockets were fired into Israel and a large number of militants crossed the border, seizing equipment and taking hostages. In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the country is at war and that a comprehensive military campaign would unfold against Hamas in Gaza.
Israeli forces launched an intervention operation named Iron Swords, with the stated objective of dismantling Hamas’s infrastructure and capabilities. In parallel, the Israeli Air Force conducted extensive strikes on Hamas targets inside the Gaza Strip. The National Security Council directed steps to tighten the blockade on Gaza by restricting water, food, essential goods, electricity, and fuel. Authority figures also discussed the relocation of Palestinian populations within Gaza, with early communications indicating a potential evacuation area in southern Gaza ahead of any ground maneuveres.
In international forums, officials and observers have debated the legal and humanitarian implications of such moves. There have been calls for balance between security needs and protection of civilians, along with discussions about the potential humanitarian impact of displacement and blockades. The European Union has publicly voiced opposition to acts it views as harmful to civilians in Gaza, urging all parties to pursue restraint and to protect noncombatants while addressing security concerns.
As events continued to unfold, analysts highlighted the broader strategic questions surrounding a possible large-scale ground operation. Debates focused on long-term security, the risks to civilian life, and the broader regional consequences of any sustained military campaign. The situation remained dynamic, with security assessments and policy responses evolving in response to new developments on the ground and shifting international pressures.
Observers noted that the conflict had already reshaped regional alignments and exposed critical questions about humanitarian access, measurement of risk, and the role of international institutions in facilitating or constraining responses. Despite differing perspectives on the best path forward, there was a general consensus that any action would have significant and lasting implications for both sides and for regional stability.