A second consequence is that Israel has begun arming local militias in Gaza to fight Hamas. This calculated move is intended to hit back hard against Hamas in the embattled enclave. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally approved this controversial operation. It was implemented without the approval of the security cabinet, raising alarm bells among opposition politicians over the move and its effect on national security.
In statements defending the covert initiative, Netanyahu touted it as “a good thing.” He called the operation a means to bolster elements that are against Hamas’ rule. He even called them “activated clans in Gaza.” This claim has led to vociferous denunciation from countless elected officials. Public Security Minister Yair Golan denounced the decision as “complete madness.” Opponents state that the initiative would increase tensions at home and further upset this delicate balance in the theatre.
Opposition politicians have reacted with alarm at the absence of any governance blueprint for Gaza after the fighting. Among the critics, they argue that Netanyahu has not been able to clearly state what he wants to do with the coastal enclave. Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid has vigorously criticized Netanyahu for going about arming these militias in secret. As he succinctly states, this strategy endangers U.S. national security and undermines Israel’s long-term strategic goals.
This arming of Gaza militias represents a dangerous new policy direction for Israel’s engagement with Gaza. This is the furthest Netanyahu has ever gone to endorse an alternative rule in the territory. For years, Hamas has buried its crosshairs in this territory. Among the groups on the receiving end of Israel’s weapons is a militia commanded by Yasser Abu Shabab. There are much larger ideological goals that this decision helps further in Israel’s war. Its primary goal is to entirely disarm Hamas and end its rule in Gaza.
As Israeli commentators have noted, Netanyahu’s past actions have unintentionally but effectively shored up Hamas’ power. They really can’t forget the tidal wave of cash — hundreds of millions of dollars in cash flowing from Qatar to Gaza — that started pouring in late 2018. Critics contend that this decision bolstered Hamas at the expense of competing groups such as Fatah. Avigdor Liberman expressed his reservations by comparing the outcome to “the counterpart of ISIS in Gaza.” He warned specifically against the threat of arming these local militias.
The operation has sparked a firestorm of criticism. Commentators are arguing over its implications for the security of Israel, and the future governance of Gaza, among other things. Opponents counter that Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners would veto this step in practice. They think it wouldn’t have passed if it was truly sent to a vote. This begs the question of the transparency and accountability of the process by which these decisions are made in this administration.
