Three years after the October 7 attacks by Hamas, the image of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as an invincible military power has been significantly challenged. In response to the assault, Israel unleashed an unprecedented campaign of destruction across the Gaza Strip, mobilizing support from Western allies while utilizing nearly its entire military arsenal, short of nuclear weaponry. The offensive targeted not only combatants but also the civilian population, resulting in over 74,000 deaths and more than 180,000 injuries, while systematically destroying healthcare, education, water, desalination, and electricity infrastructure.
Despite possessing overwhelming military superiority, Israel has struggled to translate battlefield dominance into political outcomes aligned with its stated goals. The Israeli government initially declared objectives including the release of all hostages, the elimination of Palestinian resistance, the imposition of security control over Gaza, and the establishment of an alternative administration, alongside implicit plans for the eventual displacement of Palestinians.
However, an assessment of progress reveals significant gaps between aims and reality. While all hostages have been released, the IDF directly secured only eight living captives and recovered the bodies of twelve. At least three were killed by Israeli fire during operations, and others died during bombing campaigns. The majority were freed through diplomatic negotiations, leading one official responsible for hostage affairs to admit that many could have been saved a year earlier if diplomacy had been prioritized.
Furthermore, Israel has failed to eradicate Hamas’s presence in Gaza. Despite extensive military operations and the assassination of numerous resistance leaders, Hamas retains control over parts of the territory, continuing to withstand Israeli airstrikes and attacks from pro-Israeli Palestinian militias. Consequently, Israel has shifted from attempting to disarm Hamas by force to negotiating its disarmament.
Military occupation has also proven limited. The IDF currently controls approximately 60 percent of the Gaza Strip but has halted any further large-scale offensive, recognizing that the political, humanitarian, and military costs of full occupation would be prohibitive. Additionally, efforts by Israel and the United States to install a “Board of Peace” and implement a reconstruction plan excluding the United Nations have largely stalled, with the designated administrative committee failing to enter Gaza and humanitarian provisions unimplemented.
Plans for the expulsion of Palestinians have similarly yielded little progress. Although Israel has employed tactics including repeated displacement, starvation, and home destruction to encourage “voluntary departure,” the majority of Gaza’s population remains determined to stay. Some Palestinians have even returned from Egypt, contradicting Israeli expectations.
The strategy of reducing Gaza to an “apocalyptic landscape” to break Palestinian resolve has not succeeded. Instead, the enduring presence of Palestinians, the persistence of resistance, and the growing international visibility of the Palestinian cause suggest that brutal aggression has achieved the opposite of its intended political effect.
International legitimacy for Israel has eroded significantly. During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent address to the UN General Assembly, representatives from the majority of member states walked out. Netanyahu himself faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Public opinion data from Pew Research indicates that 67 percent of adults across 36 countries view Israel unfavorably, with high disapproval rates in key ally nations including Germany (73 percent), the UK (69 percent), France (68 percent), and the US (60 percent).
In Washington, bipartisan support is fracturing as lawmakers propose bills to curb military aid or impose sanctions. In Europe, trade restrictions on illegal settlements have been enacted. Despite domestic rhetoric celebrating military prowess and promising retribution, analysts argue that Israel has effectively “lost” its strategic objective: it destroyed a weak non-state actor militarily but failed to extinguish a national cause that has commanded global attention for decades. Military force can impose temporary control, but it cannot generate the political legitimacy required for lasting peace.
The resilience of the Palestinian population is the key takeaway. Displacement tactics failed because people chose to stay.
Skepticism here: does the IDF truly lack capability, or is the will absent? The analysis suggests a strategic failure, not just tactical.
I wonder if the diplomatic route could have achieved more sooner. Why was negotiation deprioritized for so long?
The humanitarian cost is staggering. Over 74,000 deaths and infrastructure destroyed—surely this changes the conversation globally?
It is fascinating how military might cannot solve political problems. This article confirms what many suspected from the start.