The conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, now stretching into its eighth brutal month, presents a landscape of bleak options for both sides. As the war drags on, the initial optimism from early tactical advances by Israel has given way to a grinding and costly stalemate. The situation calls for an urgent rethinking of strategies, as none of the current trajectories promise a clear path to lasting peace. One proposed option is a fullscale military occupation by Israel.

This scenario envisions a decisive victory that would dismantle Hamas’s military capabilities and secure the release of hostages. However, historical precedents caution against this approach. The 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon saw the rise of Hezbollah, and similar patterns could emerge in Gaza. A long-term military presence would be costly, not only in terms of financial resources but also in human lives. Moreover, it would likely be met with international condemnation and increased responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents. Another proposal involves a lighter occupation, with Israel maintaining security control while delegating civilian administration to local Palestinians unaffiliated with Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, with support from Arab nations. This plan faces significant obstacles, notably the lack of willing and credible local partners.

Efforts to identify cooperative local leaders have thus far failed, and Arab states have shown little interest in legitimising an Israeli presence in Gaza. The idea of a grand bargain, supported by the United States, seeks a broader resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This would involve a reformed Palestinian Authority governing Gaza, backed by Arab nations, and Israel committing to a path toward Palestinian statehood. While theoretically promising, this plan demands substantial concessions from all parties involved. The Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his key allies, have firmly opposed any move that could be perceived as rewarding Hamas or paving the way for a militant-run state. Hamas’s proposal, which includes the release of hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, Israeli withdrawal, and a ceasefire, might seem more palatable to some Israelis. It offers the prospect of immediate relief, particularly for the families of hostages.

Yet, this approach risks leaving Hamas in control and potentially stronger in the long term, as it would have time to regroup and rearm. Nevertheless, the rising public pressure within Israel for such a deal reflects the deepening war fatigue and the desperate desire for a resolution. Ultimately, each of these scenarios carries significant risks and trade-offs. A full-scale occupation could plunge Israel into a quagmire reminiscent of US experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lighter occupation or reliance on local governance faces practical and ethical hurdles. The grand bargain requires unprecedented political courage and compromise, while negotiating directly with Hamas could embolden the militant group. What is clear is that the current impasse cannot continue indefinitely without severe humanitarian and political repercussions. A creative and sustainable solution must be found, one that acknowledges the complex realities on the ground