Gaza at the Brink: Inside Israel’s Latest Offensive
 |
| A large group of displaced children and families in Gaza wait with empty pots for food aid, standing before the rubble of destroyed homes and buildings following weeks of airstrikes and conflict. |
Gaza 2025 — Israel’s Gaza City Operation: A Comprehensive Explainer
Latest developments
* All times are in (EEST)
-
Aug 9, 2025 — 11:00UN Secretary-General António Guterres described Israel’s plan to prepare to take control of Gaza City as a “dangerous escalation” and called for urgent measures to protect civilians and secure humanitarian access. UN Press.
-
Aug 8, 2025 — 21:00Reuters: Israel’s political-security cabinet approved preparations to take control of Gaza City; Prime Minister’s office said the IDF will prepare to take control while providing humanitarian assistance outside combat zones. Reuters.
-
Aug 8, 2025 — 19:30Al Jazeera live reporting: reports of strong local resistance to evacuation orders and several civilians killed during recent strikes and demonstrations. Al Jazeera.
-
Aug 8, 2025 — 18:00
-
Aug 7–8, 2025ICRC urged an agreement between parties to enable humanitarian action, secure access to hostages and protect medical and civilian operations. ICRC.
In early August 2025 Israel’s security cabinet approved a plan to prepare to take control of Gaza City. Officials framed the move as a strategy to dismantle Hamas’s urban command and to facilitate hostage recovery, while pledging humanitarian corridors outside active combat zones. International organizations and many states warned that a Gaza City operation in the current humanitarian context risks mass displacement, a sharp rise in civilian deaths, and long-term regional destabilization. This article unpacks the operational options, humanitarian context, legal framework, political dynamics, likely scenarios, and verification checklist for journalists and analysts.
Over nearly two years the Gaza Strip has seen cycles of intense combat, repeated aerial bombardment, ground operations in parts of the territory, and severe restrictions on the movement of people, fuel, food and medical supplies. The cumulative effect has been near-total degradation of public services, fragmentation of local governance, and the disintegration of normal livelihoods.
By mid-2025 multiple humanitarian indicators had already entered alarm mode. Nutrition surveys and aid-agency reporting signaled mounting acute malnutrition; the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) issued alerts consistent with a worst-case famine scenario in parts of Gaza. Hospitals and water systems were operating on dwindling fuel stocks; medical supply chains were intermittent, and food distribution networks were under constant threat from insecurity and obstruction. These preconditions make any large-scale urban operation an immediate humanitarian flashpoint.
What the cabinet approved — reading the official language
Public statements used careful phrasing: the government authorized "preparations" for taking control of Gaza City. In security parlance, the difference between preparing and occupying can be wide. Preparations can mean bolstering troops, mapping urban terrain, clearing specific targets, and calibrating logistics for a possible push. Occupation implies a sustained presence, checkpoints, administration of services and—often—significant civil-military interaction. The ambiguity of the wording is consequential because it shapes proportionality calculations, humanitarian planning, and the domestic and international political reaction.
Israeli officials framed the move as necessary to degrade Hamas command and to enable safer conditions for hostage recovery. Critics argue that in practice the only reliable way to remove embedded urban militants is through protracted ground operations, which in dense urban environments inevitably increase risks to civilians and infrastructure. The debate—inside Israel’s security establishment, between political leaders, and across diplomatic capitals—turns on whether the likely gains outweigh the operational costs and the humanitarian fallout.
Military Options and Operational Realities — The Israeli Campaign in Gaza
The Israeli military operation in Gaza is unfolding within one of the most complex operational environments on Earth. The ongoing campaign—combining ground incursions, airstrikes, and naval presence—is shaped by political imperatives, humanitarian constraints, and intense international scrutiny. Below, we explore three main operational approaches often discussed in the current context—targeted raids, clear-and-hold operations, and siege/attrition—followed by an assessment of how Gaza’s unique geography and infrastructure affects the campaign.
1) Targeted Raids — Precision Strikes in a Fluid Battlespace
Context in the current operation.
Since the escalation began, Israel has conducted a series of short-duration, high-intensity raids into Gaza City and surrounding districts. These typically involve armored units, combat engineers, and special forces supported by drones and precision-guided munitions. Objectives have ranged from destroying tunnel shafts and weapons depots to eliminating specific commanders of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Advantages in practice.
These raids reduce the need for a prolonged occupation footprint, limiting IDF exposure to urban ambushes and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). They allow the Israeli government to present operational wins—such as the neutralization of high-value targets—without committing to an indefinite urban occupation that would draw heavier casualties and political costs.
Challenges on the ground.
Gaza’s dense civilian population and built-up environment complicate real-time target verification. Even with ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets overhead, militants often operate within or beneath civilian structures, increasing the risk of unintended casualties and collateral damage. The need to exfiltrate quickly limits how much ground can be searched, meaning that many operational nodes remain untouched after the raid.
Operational trade-offs.
In the current Gaza campaign, repeated raids can create a cumulative disruption effect on militant logistics but may not dismantle deeply embedded networks—especially those operating through tunnel complexes that cannot be neutralized in a single strike.
2) Clear-and-Hold Operations — Securing Ground, Building Pressure
Recent examples.
In late-stage phases of the operation, Israeli forces have pushed deeper into Gaza City, attempting to clear neighborhoods such as Shejaiya and Zeitoun, and maintain a presence long enough to establish forward supply positions. These operations combine infantry, armor, and engineering units tasked with methodically clearing buildings, searching for tunnels, and detaining suspects.
Advantages in the current campaign.
Clear-and-hold enables the IDF to dismantle more of the physical and subterranean infrastructure supporting militant groups. Holding territory provides staging areas for further operations and allows for the establishment of “security bubbles” where the IDF can operate with fewer immediate threats.
Costs and requirements.
In Gaza, holding territory is manpower-intensive. The IDF must sustain supply corridors under constant threat of mortar and rocket fire. Every “held” block requires force protection, logistics runs for fuel and water, and secure routes for medical evacuation. Once ground is held, Israel also comes under increased international pressure to facilitate humanitarian access, restore basic services, and ensure civilian safety—tasks far outside pure combat roles.
Political implications.
Prolonged clear-and-hold in Gaza carries political risk: it can be interpreted internationally as de facto re-occupation, attracting criticism from allies and intensifying calls for a ceasefire.
3) Siege and Attrition — Strategic Isolation and its Humanitarian Costs
How it applies today.
From the earliest days of the current operation, Israel has imposed stringent controls on Gaza’s crossings, fuel deliveries, and imports. The stated aim is to weaken Hamas’s ability to resupply fighters and manufacture rockets, while applying sustained pressure on the group’s command-and-control.
Operational effectiveness.
A siege limits the adversary’s operational endurance and forces them to ration ammunition and supplies. It also constrains tunnel excavation and rocket launches by reducing available fuel and construction materials.
Humanitarian and legal pressure.
The civilian toll of this approach is severe: shortages in medical supplies, clean water, and electricity have been documented by the UN and NGOs. Israel faces constant diplomatic and media scrutiny over whether the siege breaches international humanitarian law, particularly provisions against starving civilians as a method of warfare. Humanitarian corridors, when opened, are subject to complex negotiations with mediators like Egypt, Qatar, and the UN.
Strategic risk.
While siege conditions can degrade militant capabilities, they may also deepen civilian resentment, bolster recruitment into militant ranks, and erode Israel’s diplomatic standing, especially among key regional partners.
Gaza’s Geography — A Force Multiplier for Defenders
Density and verticality.
Gaza City’s population density exceeds 40,000 people per square kilometer in some districts. Residential towers, narrow streets, and continuous rows of low-rise housing create both vertical and horizontal concealment for defenders. Israeli armor is constrained by narrow lanes, making infantry more exposed to small-arms fire and anti-tank guided missiles.
Subterranean warfare.
The IDF publicly identifies Hamas’s tunnel network—the so-called “Gaza Metro”—as a central operational challenge. These passages allow militants to evade aerial surveillance, reposition quickly, and store weapons. Clearing them requires slow, high-risk engineering work under threat of booby traps and structural collapse.
Civilian movement and uncertainty.
Evacuation orders issued by Israel have prompted mass internal displacement, but many civilians remain—either by choice, necessity, or inability to leave—complicating rules of engagement and slowing operational momentum.
Logistics, Medical Evacuation, and Sustainment in the Current Campaign
Fuel and supply corridors.
Israeli units inside Gaza rely on secure lines from staging areas near the border. Disruption of these lines—through ambushes or indirect fire—can halt operations. Fuel is critical not just for vehicles, but also for powering communications, drone recharging, and tunnel ventilation in cleared areas.
Casualty evacuation.
Urban combat in Gaza has produced significant injuries among IDF personnel, including from anti-tank missiles, sniper fire, and IEDs. Evacuation under fire is complex, requiring armored ambulances and coordination with air assets when weather and air defense conditions allow.
Impact on civilians.
Critical infrastructure damage, including to water networks and hospitals, has deepened Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. Even as IDF advances, international agencies press for the restoration of life-saving services—creating constant tension between operational tempo and humanitarian obligations.
Strategic Gains vs. Political and Humanitarian Costs
The Israeli operation in Gaza highlights the enduring paradox of modern urban warfare: decisive tactical action is possible, but sustainable strategic success is constrained by humanitarian, legal, and political realities. Every operational choice—raids, clear-and-hold, siege—carries both military benefits and steep costs. The ultimate outcome will hinge not only on battlefield developments but also on Israel’s ability to navigate the diplomatic and humanitarian fallout in the weeks and months ahead.
Humanitarian baseline: famine risk, hospitals and displacement
Multiple UN and aid-agency indicators recorded alarming trends in July–August 2025. Food-consumption metrics, malnutrition surveillance, and household surveys indicated that millions were experiencing emergency or worse levels of food insecurity; data suggested that hundreds of thousands faced famine-like conditions in parts of the Strip. The WFP and IPC warned that continued obstruction of aid flows or new access restrictions would rapidly deepen starvation and mortality rates.
Hospitals operate with fragile fuel reserves; oxygen supplies and power for neonatal and ICU wards depend on intermittent generators. The loss of refrigeration compromises blood supplies and vaccines. Water pumping and sanitation depend on fuel and intact infrastructure; failure of these systems raises the risk of communicable disease outbreaks. Aid convoys—when they move—face security risks, bureaucratic delays, and blockade-like interruptions, meaning that even well-resourced interventions can fail without robust, sustained access guarantees.
Importantly, the death toll includes civilians killed while attempting to reach or receive aid—events that are not only tragic but also indicators of the systemic breakdown of life-saving systems. In this context, a major urban operation will almost certainly produce additional barriers to safe aid delivery unless independent monitoring and enforceable protection mechanisms are agreed and implemented.
Legal framework and accountability questions
International humanitarian law requires distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality in attacks, and precautions to minimize civilian harm. Where a party to conflict intentionally obstructs aid or conducts operations that cause disproportionate harm to civilians, such acts can attract strong international scrutiny and, in some cases, legal consequences in international or national jurisdictions.
Legal assessments hinge on evidence: targeting patterns, orders issued, effectiveness of precautions, and whether adequate steps were taken to permit and facilitate rapid aid and evacuations. Investigations—if launched—often proceed slowly, but detailed contemporaneous documentation (medical records, satellite imagery, neutral monitoring) is crucial to preserve accountability over months and years.
International reaction and diplomatic levers
The cabinet decision produced strong international attention: UN appeals for restraint, rights-group condemnations, and statements from regional and Western capitals. Some governments signalled policy shifts—such as reviews of military export licences—indicating that diplomatic and material levers remain available to express disapproval. At the same time, geopolitics constrains enforcement: major powers vary in willingness to apply pressure depending on strategic ties and regional interests.
Regional actors—Egypt and Qatar among them—ramped up shuttle diplomacy aimed at negotiating humanitarian pauses and hostage arrangements. These intermediaries have limited coercive power but possess critical leverage (border control, mediation channels and influence) that can help establish temporary safeguards if all parties consent.
Three expanded scenarios — pathways and consequences
1) Limited, targeted operation with enforced humanitarian corridors (conditional best case)
In this scenario, operations focus on named targets with tight temporal windows; neutral monitors (ICRC/UN) supervise corridors; and the international community provides pressure to enforce safe passage for civilians and aid. The operation’s tactical success depends on high-quality intelligence, precision strikes, and stringent rules of engagement. Humanitarian damage is contained but not eliminated — localized destruction and displacement occur, and reconstruction needs will be significant.
2) Prolonged ground offensive and temporary occupation (probable risk)
A broader approach to secure Gaza City involves sustained clear-and-hold operations. It achieves deeper tactical disruption of militant infrastructure but imposes long-term obligations: security governance, humanitarian management, and reconstruction. The immediate humanitarian costs escalate—widespread displacement, overwhelmed shelters, water and sanitation collapse, and systemic public-health crises. Politically, occupation generates domestic polarization and international condemnation; economically, reconstruction runs into tens of billions and requires international actors to fund and manage a recovery process.
3) Major regional escalation (worst case)
Escalation beyond Gaza—through cross-border strikes, militant spillover, or diplomatic breakdown—creates a multi-front crisis. Refugee flows strain neighboring host states; energy markets and trade routes feel pressure; and diplomatic options narrow as alliances harden. The humanitarian toll multiplies rapidly and sustained peace prospects become more remote.
Operational constraints and logistical realities
Sustained urban operations require fuel, medevac capacity, engineering units to clear obstacles, and robust logistics for rotation of forces. For the civilian population, fuel shortages mean hospitals cannot run critical equipment; for the military, shortages reduce operational tempo and increase vulnerability. Evacuation plans are challenging where neighborhoods are densely packed and where civilians lack safe corridors to move to.
Another constraint: subterranean tunnel networks and multi-level buildings complicate clearance and increase casualty risk. Urban operations also strain intelligence collection and human terrain mapping, which must be updated continuously as civilians move and combatants adapt.
Help deliver life-saving food and aid to families in Gaza. Every donation matters. Stand for humanity today.
Your contribution supports emergency relief, food, medicine, and shelter for children and families in crisis.
Support our mission
Join us in keeping
qpnet
free and open to every curious mind. Your generosity lights our way, sustains our development and hosting, and breathes life into the inspiring content and warm community we cherish. Every gift, big or small, reminds us how united we are in this journey.
We’re deeply grateful for your kindness and belief in our shared vision.
No comments
Share your opinion with us