The recent announcement by the Board of Peace of a new deal for Gaza including Hamas disarmament, Israeli withdrawal, and the empowerment of the civilian technocratic committee to govern gives new hope after months of stagnation. The basic causes of the stagnation, however, have not changed. Hamas demands that Israel withdraw before it disarms, and Israel demands that Hamas disarm before it withdraws.
It is possible that a staggered disarmament, timed with a staggered withdrawal, can work – but only if US President Donald Trump applies maximum pressure on Israel to agree. Even then, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will likely agree but find a way to sabotage implementation as in the past. Netanyahu is still looking for his absolute victory through military force alone.
The way to defeat Hamas and increase Israel’s security is not by a massive military strike that causes untold suffering to the Palestinian civilian population, increases Israel’s international isolation, and leaves Hamas with an even stronger grip on Gaza. Israel is not the first country to confront irregular armed forces embedded within a civilian population.
The counterinsurgency strategy to defeat Hamas in Gaza
To defeat Hamas, Israel should have employed the counterinsurgency strategy developed over the past 80 years since World War II. Originally known as the Clear-Hold-Build strategy, and now referred to as the Shape-Clear-Hold-Build-Transition doctrine, it has been employed with varying degrees of success in the Malayan Peninsula, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Under Gen. David Petraeus during the 2007-2008 Iraq Surge, a civilian-protection-focused counterinsurgency strategy significantly reduced violence and helped restore stability.
The Shape-Clear-Hold-Build-Transition strategy, as described in more detail in a recent Arava Institute publication, is a phased approach to stabilizing areas affected by insurgency or sectarian conflict.
It begins by shaping the operational environment through intelligence gathering, partnership building, and preparation of the population and security forces. Security forces then clear insurgent or hostile elements, hold the area by maintaining a persistent security presence to prevent their return, and build effective governance, essential services, economic opportunities, and community resilience to address the underlying drivers of instability.
Finally, responsibility is transitioned to capable local authorities and institutions, enabling them to sustain security, governance, and development independently over the long term.
ISRAEL CHOSE to rely primarily on military action to defeat Hamas. Had it adopted the Shape-Clear-Hold-Build-Transition doctrine, the outcome might have been very different. Instead, almost the entire Gazan population has been displaced into overcrowded shelters lacking adequate sanitation, electricity, food, water, healthcare, education, and other essential services.
Nearly three years of war, following Hamas’s barbaric attacks and massacre of Israeli civilians near the Gaza border, have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian noncombatants, the destruction of more than 80% of Gaza’s housing, the collapse of major water, sanitation, and energy infrastructure, and Israel’s occupation of approximately 60% of the Gaza Strip, forcing almost the entire population into the remaining area.
Rather than separating Hamas from the civilian population, the campaign has left Hamas embedded within it, enabling the organization to continue using civilians as shields while maintaining its financial and recruitment networks. It has also contributed to Israel’s growing international isolation.
The most critical strategic principle of the Shape-Clear-Hold-Build-Transition doctrine is protecting the civilian population rather than focusing exclusively on eliminating militants. Civilian security is central to establishing legitimacy for subsequent military and political actions.
Israel abandoned this principle early in the war when it discontinued its long-standing practice of warning civilians before airstrikes on buildings housing both militants and civilians.
Abandoning this policy contributed to thousands of civilian deaths, fueled international condemnation, and likely strengthened Hamas’s hold over the population. Rather than separating Palestinian civilians from Hamas’s authoritarian control, Israel’s strategy has reinforced their dependence on the organization.
However, it is not too late to make civilian safety and security the central objective. A shift from hunting Hamas to protecting civilians would understandably be met with skepticism by Palestinians in Gaza and by the broader international community. Rebuilding trust would require time and close coordination among military, civilian, and international actors.
The current stalemate in implementing phase two of the Trump peace plan stems largely from the absence of an agreed sequence of implementation. The new 15-point plan is an attempt to restart the stalled process, which envisions Hamas disarming, Israel withdrawing, the International Stabilization Force (ISF) providing security, and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) assuming civilian governance.
None of these steps has begun because each party insists the others move first, while doubts remain about Israel’s willingness to withdraw and Hamas’s willingness to disarm. It remains to be seen if the new agreement breaks the stalemate.
WHAT IS needed is a testing ground for a different reality – one in which civilians are protected from both the IDF and Hamas, security is provided by the ISF, and governance is exercised by the NCAG. This reflects the “ink-blot” strategy, a military maneuver, whereby secure zones gradually expand as security, governance, and reconstruction spread outward.
Over the past two-and-a-half years, through the joint Israeli-Palestinian environmental humanitarian initiative of Damour for Community Development and the Arava Institute, Jumpstarting Hope in Gaza, limited resources have created self-managed refuges for displaced people, providing shelter, safety, food, water, and essential community services without interference from armed groups.
These communities, together with similar initiatives established by other organizations, could become the nucleus of expanding secure areas under the protection of counterinsurgency forces.
To establish such islands of safety within Hamas-controlled areas, Hamas need not immediately disarm; it would be sufficient for the organization to withdraw from and cede control of a limited area to the ISF and NCAG. A similar logic underpins aspects of the recent Israel-Lebanon agreement. Israel could encourage such an arrangement by simultaneously withdrawing from a comparable area under its own control.
Building trust and legitimacy is essential to moving Gaza – and the region as a whole – beyond recurring cycles of violence toward lasting stability. The legitimacy of the Trump peace plan ultimately depends on the ability of the ISF and NCAG to provide both security and effective governance.
The “Trump Peace Plan: From Stagnation to Action” conference, held on July 13 in Tel Aviv and organized by Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies and the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, emphasized that empowering the NCAG is central to the plan’s success.
How can Hamas be defeated? Israel must prioritize civilian protection by eliminating collateral damage, ensuring reliable access to shelter, food, water, energy, sanitation, health care, education, and livelihoods. Negotiations should initially focus on separating Hamas from the civilian population rather than immediate disarmament.
Simultaneous Israeli and Hamas withdrawals from designated areas, supervised by the United States and the ISF, would enable the ISF and NCAG to establish secure islands of safety that can gradually expand across Gaza as Hamas reduces its footprint, disarms, and ultimately transitions into the political process.
Ultimately, success will depend on a coalition of Israeli, Palestinian, and international actors working in tandem to move away from violence and toward real peace.
The writer is the director of the Center for Applied Environmental Diplomacy at the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies.