Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip, launched in response to the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, has entered a critical phase as the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) top command reasserts its main objectives. During a recent inspection in Gaza, IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir emphasized the necessity of achieving unequivocal victory over Hamas, with explicit orders to dismantle terrorist infrastructure wherever it is encountered. This directive, publicly documented by the IDF and communicated directly to front-line troops, underscores Israel’s commitment to restoring security for its population while meeting the threat posed by Iran-backed terror groups operating within and around Gaza. Zamir’s field statement, which reaffirmed the IDF’s operational priorities, comes as Israeli ground and air units conduct coordinated attacks aimed at eliminating Hamas’s military capacity—a process that has required complex urban maneuvering and the use of advanced precision weaponry.
The context of these operations is rooted in the unprecedented nature of the October 7th massacre, which according to official reports by the Israeli government, resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 civilians and the abduction of more than 240 hostages. International investigations, as well as statements from U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies, have detailed the orchestration of these attacks by Hamas with substantial logistical, financial, and operational support from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). These tragic events, carried out with a degree of brutality unseen since the Holocaust—evidenced by forensic reports, eyewitness testimonies, and data from human rights monitors—included targeted killings, sexual violence, mutilation, and systematic hostage-taking. The scale and organized nature of the assault reflected a deliberate escalation within the wider conflict, demonstrating the continuing evolution of Iran’s strategy to destabilize the region by leveraging its network of armed proxies.
Operation Iron Swords, the IDF’s immediate and ongoing response, has been characterized by a dual focus: neutralizing Hamas’s capacity to inflict harm on Israeli civilians and re-establishing deterrence against regional actors within the Iranian alliance system. Israeli forces have prioritized the identification and destruction of Hamas’s extensive tunnel system, which, according to military spokespersons and independent analysts, is used to store weapons, facilitate command movement, and shelter operatives. The IDF has presented evidence—through drone footage, intercepted communications, and captured documents—of the use of schools, hospitals, and mosques by Hamas as shields for military assets, a practice condemned internationally as a violation of the laws of armed conflict. Israeli operations have thus integrated intelligence-driven targeting, information operations to encourage civilian evacuations, and the regular publication of humanitarian warnings to minimize the risk to non-combatants, in line with obligations under international law.
Throughout the campaign, Israel has consistently addressed both the humanitarian consequences of military action and the obstacles presented by Hamas’s embedded position within Gaza’s civilian population. The Israeli government, supported by United Nations monitoring and statements from the U.S. State Department, maintains that the flow of humanitarian aid is necessary to mitigate civilian suffering, but stresses that it is Hamas that bears primary responsibility for the crisis—owing to its routine diversion of aid and the positioning of combat infrastructure within residential areas. The IDF’s deconfliction mechanisms, including daily briefings with humanitarian agencies and the establishment of evacuation corridors, are documented in public releases from both Israeli officials and international NGOs present in the Gaza Strip. However, persistent reports from these agencies also cite challenges posed by intense hostilities, ongoing bombardments by Hamas rocket fire into Israeli cities, and the group’s persistent threats against civilians attempting to leave areas of active combat.
Western governments, led by the United States, have articulated clear diplomatic support for Israel’s right to self-defense, with repeated calls for Hamas to release all hostages and to refrain from using human shields. President Donald Trump and his successor, President Joe Biden, along with senior European officials, have stated in policy briefings and UN Security Council addresses that Israel’s actions are a legitimate response to terror attacks aimed at its civilian population. The U.S., a principal supplier of defensive technologies such as the Iron Dome system, has also continued to share intelligence with its Israeli counterparts, reflecting the broader American-Israeli strategic partnership in the region. Statements from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom echo this broad support, though some European governments have also urged restraint and the strict observance of proportionality.
Conflict dynamics remain shaped not only by direct military engagement but by the regional dimension of the Iranian-backed “Axis of Resistance,” encompassing Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria. Israeli security officials, referencing multi-source intelligence—including satellite data, signals intelligence, and captured Iranian materiel—report that weapon transfers, rocket development, and tactical innovations have flowed freely from Tehran to Gaza, often via smuggling networks that evade regional counter-proliferation efforts. Hamas, in turn, has participated in joint planning and social media campaigns alongside these allied groups, seeking to amplify pressure on Israeli society and to mobilize anti-Western sentiment within global public opinion. According to analysis by institutions such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the overarching Iranian aim is to fragment the region, undermine Western-backed governments, and constrain Israel’s operational freedom—a calculus that fundamentally informs every aspect of current IDF doctrine.
Militarily, the IDF has demonstrated considerable adaptation in the face of asymmetric tactics and urban warfare challenges. Operations have combined armored incursions with dismounted infantry sweeps, exploiting advanced surveillance assets and coordinated air support to degrade terrorist networks while minimizing Israeli exposure to ambush and improvised explosive devices. The IDF’s C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) capabilities provide near-real-time threat detection, with information flows managed across joint headquarters and field units. Intelligence from air reconnaissance and cyber operations has enabled preemptive strikes on emerging threats and the neutralization of senior Hamas field commanders, as confirmed in regular situation updates published by the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit and corroborated by Western defense analysts.
Beyond active combat, the campaign’s psychological dimension remains prominent in the lives of both Israeli and Gaza residents. For Israelis, the persistent rocket fire—intercepted in large part by Iron Dome but frequently aimed at civilian centers—underscores the necessity of eliminating enemy launch capability. Israeli officials, citing Ministry of Health statistics and government-commissioned psychological studies, report widespread trauma among civilian populations, particularly children in heavily targeted communities. The IDF’s continued presence and operational intensity are thus widely regarded within Israel as indispensable for restoring a sense of safety.
In Gaza, residents endure both the direct effects of combat and the suffocating control exercised by Hamas, which, according to Israeli and Western intelligence, systematically punishes dissent and diverts critical supplies to its fighters. Testimonies collected by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, as well as intercepted internal communications, reveal a climate of fear and forced militarization among Gaza’s youth. While some international observers have criticized Israel’s tactics, senior Israeli officials, including Lieutenant General Zamir, emphasize that no modern military faces an adversary so thoroughly embedded within the fabric of civilian life and so intent on maximizing civilian casualties for propaganda purposes.
The fate of the more than 240 hostages taken on October 7 remains a central concern for Israeli society and policymakers. Negotiations for their release are marked by intricate mediation efforts involving the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, documented in official statements by the Israeli National Security Council and confirmed by international mediators. Israel maintains that any cessation of hostilities will require the unconditional return of all hostages, a stance supported by the Geneva Conventions and echoed in calls for accountability by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Numerous cases have demonstrated that individuals released in previous exchanges with Hamas have subsequently returned to terrorist activity, underscoring the perilous asymmetry inherent in potential deals.
The Israeli strategy, as articulated by the military command and government spokespersons, involves not only the elimination of immediate threats but also the creation of conditions for a sustainable post-conflict order in Gaza—one that excludes the return of terrorist governance. Israeli officials stress in their policy briefings the importance of maintaining operational freedom while collaborating with Western and regional allies to envision an alternative civil administration and reconstruction framework for Gaza. These goals, widely reported in both Israeli and international press, remain subject to ongoing debate among security analysts regarding the feasibility of violence-free, demilitarized governance in the wake of Hamas’s defeat.
Israeli, American, and European policymakers all recognize the broader geostrategic consequences of the current war: Failure to eliminate Hamas’s infrastructure would embolden both local and regional actors hostile to Western interests, potentially triggering further destabilization. The Abraham Accords, recently reaffirmed in joint ministerial meetings, represent a commitment to inter-state normalization, economic integration, and collective security mechanisms intended to blunt Iranian influence. Meanwhile, the IDF’s operational lessons—integrating urban warfare innovations, information operations, and the careful calibration of force—are closely watched by Western militaries as a bellwether for future counterterrorism campaigns in complex environments.
In sum, the direction provided by IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir in Gaza reflects not only Israel’s enduring commitment to protect its citizens, but the enduring Western principle that sovereign states have a right—and a duty—to defend themselves against terrorism. This campaign, prosecuted with an awareness of international legal standards and in close consultation with allied governments, will continue as long as organizations such as Hamas threaten regional security, exploit innocent populations, and act as proxies for external powers intent on destabilizing the Middle East. Israeli officials have declared that the ultimate defeat of terrorist groups in Gaza is inseparable from the broader defense of democratic societies, the integrity of international law, and the possibility of eventual peace and reconstruction in a region marked by recurrent conflict.
