Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) targeted a Hamas tunnel network in northern Gaza in the late months of 2023, in an operation that, according to military briefings and subsequent official reports, narrowly missed striking Edan Alexander, an Israeli hostage held by Hamas. This event, which unfolded during Alexander’s final month in captivity, draws stark attention to the dangers entailed in Israel’s campaign against Hamas’s covert infrastructure and the persistent perils faced by hostages held underground by terror organizations backed by Iran. The IDF’s campaign followed the Hamas-led assault on Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, which was the deadliest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and involved mass killings, sexual violence, and the abduction of civilians—including Alexander—from southern Israel into the Gaza Strip.
Authoritative sources, including IDF spokespersons and Israeli government statements, confirm that the tunnels targeted in the strike formed part of an expansive subterranean complex used by Hamas for military operations, movement of operatives, storage of weaponry, and the imprisonment of hostages. At the time of the attack, Alexander and other abducted Israelis were held in these tunnels, often relocated unpredictably by Hamas to avoid detection. Precision intelligence and Israeli surveillance assets drove the strikes; nonetheless, operational realities meant that the proximity of hostages to military targets could not always be established in real time. A subsequent IDF review determined that the strike nearly resulted in Alexander’s death, amplifying the ever-present risk Israeli hostages face as the military seeks to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure and secure their release.
The episode serves as a microcosm of the humanitarian and ethical dilemma at the heart of Israel’s war effort: Israel is compelled to act against terror networks embedded in densely populated and militarized environments, while striving to avoid harm to innocents—particularly its own abducted citizens. The operational backdrop to the rescue and targeting efforts involves the vast network of tunnels—sometimes called the “Gaza Metro”—which Hamas has spent years and millions of dollars constructing beneath civilian infrastructure. Israeli military engineers, Western intelligence assessments, and independent observers have confirmed that tunnel entrances are frequently located under homes, mosques, hospitals, and United Nations facilities, with networked passageways connecting command centers, rocket launch pads, and detention cells. The objective function for these tunnels is not merely military utility but also to shield Hamas leaders and operatives from IDF airstrikes, to store weapons for cross-border attacks, and—critically— to retain hostages as bargaining chips, using human life to deter Israeli action and to extract political concessions.
Following the October 7 attack, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz declared the destruction of Hamas’s terror capabilities and the release of hostages as the state’s overriding priorities. This resolve was echoed by the United States, with President Donald Trump and successive American administrations affirming Israel’s right to defend its citizens in line with international law. The IDF, under the command of Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, conducted a campaign combining intelligence-driven ground operations with precision airstrikes, often pre-warning Gaza residents through leaflets, phone calls, and humanitarian corridors. Israel’s operational doctrine, repeatedly articulated in military briefings, is rooted in minimizing civilian casualties and upholding ethical standards, contrasting with Hamas’s use of human shields and routine violations of international human rights norms.
Hamas’s holding of more than 100 Israeli and foreign hostages, hidden in tunnels and civilian buildings, is core to its operational strategy: the group views the hostages as leverage to free convicted terrorists from Israeli prisons and as psychological warfare against the Israeli public. Israel’s efforts to rescue its citizens, in some instances through negotiated releases and in others through covert military action, have been described by global humanitarian observers as among the world’s most complex rescue challenges. Every IDF assault on Hamas’s tunnel network is weighed against the intelligence risk of harming hostages—a calculus rendered more urgent by documented cases in which hostages have been executed, mistreated, or used as human shields by Hamas.
The broader historical context reveals that the October 7 massacre shattered the fragile status quo in the region, marking a turning point in Israel’s conflict with Iranian-backed terrorist groups. Authenticated footage and forensic analysis confirm the scale and brutality of Hamas’s attack, which resembled pogroms not seen since World War II: over 1,200 Israelis were killed, entire communities were razed, and dozens of hostages—including children, elderly, and foreign nationals—were abducted. These acts were recognized internationally as war crimes and crimes against humanity. In response, Israel initiated Operation Iron Swords, with the stated goal to eradicate the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas and ensure such atrocities could never recur.
Israel’s war in Gaza is not isolated, but occurs against a backdrop of Iranian proxy operations in the Middle East—encompassing Hezbollah’s threats from Lebanon, the Houthis’ missile barrages from Yemen, and the orchestration of anti-Israel militias in Syria and Iraq. This wider “axis of resistance” is coordinated from Tehran, using asymmetrical warfare, terror attacks, and hybrid tactics—including disinformation—against Israel and its allies. With Hamas embedded in this axis as a central node, Western security officials routinely describe Israel’s campaign in Gaza as a frontline battle for the defense of democratic values and international security. The claim is that the fate of Israel’s hostages and the outcome of its military operations carry strategic consequences far beyond its borders.
Central to the Western reporting and official Israeli statements is the insistence that hostages like Edan Alexander are civilians—innocents taken from their homes—and must never be equated with convicted terrorists whom Israel has released in lopsided exchanges to procure the return of its people. This categorical distinction carries legal, moral, and political weight, underscoring the asymmetry between a democratic state operating under the rule of law and a designated terrorist group executing systematic war crimes. Israeli authorities have repeatedly called for clear international language on these matters, objecting strenuously to any narrative that blurs the lines between legitimate resistance and premeditated acts of terror. The United Nations and leading Western governments have, in public statements, condemned hostage-taking and called for unconditional release. Yet the ongoing captivity of Israelis in Gaza, shielded by armed groups with ties to Iran, attests to the persistent danger and complexity of hostage crises in twenty-first-century asymmetric warfare.
The legacy of Edan Alexander—and the tragic circumstances by which his life was nearly cut short by the very efforts to liberate him—has informed subsequent policy and operational refinement within the Israeli security establishment. The IDF now incorporates even greater layers of intelligence verification, surveillance, and communication before launching tunnel strikes near suspected hostage locations. This approach is supplemented by enhanced cooperation with the United States, which has provided technical assistance, satellite intelligence, and tactical expertise on tunnel warfare—recognizing the parallels with hostage rescues and anti-insurgency campaigns elsewhere. The Alexander case has also hardened Israeli public opinion: national solidarity, as well as pressure on policymakers and the military, remains intensely focused on securing the safe return of all hostages as a precondition for any ceasefire or postwar arrangement.
The Western alliance with Israel endures, not only because of shared security imperatives, but also due to a moral imperative to support a fellow democracy facing existential threats. Senior officials in Washington, London, and Berlin reiterate that the broader struggle against terrorism—whether in Gaza, the Red Sea, or European capitals—is indivisible from the defense of the basic principles of sovereignty, human rights, and rule of law. By contrast, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and their Iranian sponsors remain committed to a revolutionary project that envisions the annihilation of Israel and the destabilization of all who oppose their aims. The resilience of Israeli society, the professionalism of its military, and the steadfastness of its Western partners, are—according to analysts—essential bulwarks against the descent into chaos envisioned by the architects of the October 7 massacre.
As the war’s second year approaches, public attention increasingly centers on the fate of the remaining hostages and on Israel’s campaign to root out Hamas’s underground empire. The risks exemplified by the near-miss that endangered Edan Alexander’s life remain ever-present. Yet, Israeli leaders and their Western allies maintain that capitulation to terror is not an option. The complexity and gravity of hostage rescue in a landscape transformed by subterranean warfare stands as one of the defining challenges of modern conflict—one that will continue to test the resolve, values, and unity of Israel and the free world.
