What Israel stands to lose on its Gaza offensive

As Israel presses ahead with Operation Gideon’s Chariots, its most ambitious military campaign in Gaza since the war began, the political landscape surrounding the conflict is shifting – and not in Israel’s favor. Britain’s suspension of trade talks, the summoning of Israeli Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely and coordinated statements of condemnation from the UK, France and Canada mark the strongest international censure yet. For many in Jerusalem, this is not only short-sighted but morally confounding.

Israel’s operation, launched with the stated aim of eliminating Hamas’s military infrastructure and securing the return of its hostages, comes after months of inconclusive ceasefires, failed negotiations and mounting frustration. The January truce, welcomed at the time as a potential inflection point, left Hamas’s leadership intact, hostages still underground and humanitarian aid channels co-opted by the very organization accused of starting the war. It was a ceasefire that delivered neither peace nor accountability – just a pause that allowed Hamas to regroup.

Israel is walking a tightrope between strategic necessity and moral scrutiny

This time, Israel appears resolved not to make the same mistake. The offensive is fierce and wide-ranging, targeting the remaining Hamas strongholds, including the dense tunnel networks and embedded urban positions that have long complicated IDF operations. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir described the campaign as a “multi-sector war” that Israel did not choose but was forced into on “the black day of October 7.” His message to Gazans was unsparing:

We are not hiding in hospitals or schools. We are not staying in luxury hotels while you live in squalor. It is your leadership… Hamas is responsible.

From a strategic point of view, this phase of the war reflects a recalibrated doctrine. With the return of President Trump and a shift in Washington’s posture, Israel now faces fewer constraints. The operation is, in essence, a gamble: a final attempt to break Hamas’s grip on Gaza, even at the cost of international rebuke. Whether this gamble pays off remains to be seen, but it is clear that Israel believes there is no viable alternative.

The growing international backlash, however, poses a different sort of challenge. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s description of the offensive as “morally unjustifiable” echoes sentiments now common across European capitals. Yet Hamas’s open praise for the UK, France and Canada in response to these criticisms should give policymakers pause. When condemnation is celebrated by a terrorist group which seizes, tortures and starves hostages, uses its own civilians as shields, stores rockets in schools and builds command centers beneath hospitals, the political calculus ought to be reevaluated.

Much of the current outrage is rooted in legitimate concern for civilian suffering. But a closer examination reveals that many claims driving the narrative are either unverifiable, exaggerated, or sourced from organizations with compromised credibility. The UN’s own reporting has all but erased Hamas as a combatant force in the conflict, mentioning its tactics only in passing, if at all. A recent report by the Henry Jackson Society fills this void, documenting in detail Hamas’s deliberate embedding of military assets within civilian zones – a strategy long acknowledged by US and EU leaders, and even by Hamas officials themselves.

Allegations of mass starvation continue to circulate, yet images emerging from Gaza frequently show children at food distribution points who appear healthy, even energetic. This observation is not a denial of suffering, but a call for critical scrutiny. International media has long understood the power of imagery in war; now more than ever, caution is warranted. Tragedy must be documented, but so must manipulation.

What’s more, while some Western leaders berate Israel, protests against Hamas have been growing inside Gaza itself. In Khan Younis, demonstrators condemned Hamas leadership directly, chanting at one of its spokesmen, “Even the child wants to live.” Anger also surged after an interview from March resurfaced in which senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri dismissed the deaths of tens of thousands in Gaza, insisting they were replaceable. “These are just the costs,” he said, calling it a new interpretation of the Qur’an. For many Gazans, the remarks felt like betrayal. They stand in stark contrast to David Lammy’s remarks on the war. Unsurprisingly, the British government still has little to say regarding Hamas’s proudly expressed disregard for Palestinian and Israeli lives. 

None of this is to say Israel’s operation is without peril. The humanitarian consequences are profound, and the longer the campaign continues, the more isolated Israel risks becoming. A worst case scenario looms: the offensive stalls, Hamas survives and the war’s core goals remain unmet. But equally dangerous is the premature halting of the operation under external pressure, leaving Hamas emboldened, hostages unrecovered, and Gaza’s future just as bleak.

This is the complexity of the moment. As has so often been the case during its history, Israel is walking a tightrope between strategic necessity and moral scrutiny, its actions judged under a microscope often devoid of the enemy’s context. There is real suffering, and there are real stakes. But there is also a clarity emerging – however uncomfortable – that Hamas, not Israel, remains the principal architect of this war and the primary obstacle to its end. Whether the international community is willing to see that will shape the outcome as much as anything on the battlefield.