Watch Webinar – The ‘Generals’ Plan’ for Gaza
As Israeli forces continue to fight Iran and its axis of resistance on multiple fronts, a letter this week from Secretaries of Defense and State Lloyd Austin and Antony Blinken starkly warned that if Israel did not increase humanitarian aid to Gaza in 30 days, it risked a devastating suspension of U.S. weapons supplies. Behind the letter is a growing concern that Israel has adopted the so-called “Generals’ Plan,” a controversial strategy proposed by a group of retired Israeli generals to give hundreds of thousands of civilians a strict deadline to evacuate northern Gaza before the IDF lays siege to the area to starve out and destroy the remaining elements of Hamas.
JINSA hosted a discussion with Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland, the intellectual architect of the “Generals’ Plan” to hear exactly what the proposal does (and does not) entail and how it relates to Israel’s renewed operations in northern Gaza. Eiland served as national security advisor to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The discussion was moderated by JINSA’s Randi & Charles Wax Senior Fellow John Hannah.
|
Key Quotes From IDF MG (ret.) Giora Eiland: “From the pure military point of view, we are winning. … [However] Hamas enjoys something which is very significant, and this is the supply that enters Gaza. Israel allows about 300 trucks of supply to enter Gaza every day. … [Hamas aid seizures] create a situation [where] the people of Gaza … can survive, because they get food, water, medicine, gas for cooking, all they really need for basic life. At the same time, Hamas is perceived as the savior of the people because [they are] delivering the food.” “The profit of Hamas is about half a billion dollars in the past 12 months [from aid seizures] … [as] they get all the supply for free and sell it [at] high prices. … Because they have so much money, it enables them to … [pay] tens of thousands of employees … in the municipalities, in the ministries … also, they can easily hire new young people to be combatants.” “The idea is simple … [and] has two, maybe three phases. The first is … [evacuating civilians from northern Gaza], it is only a matter of 3, 4 miles to reach … the Mawasi area … there are a lot of tents there and they can join the other people who are there. … After we give [those in northern Gaza] … a chance to leave, by definition [such an area] is going to be a military zone … and then we can tell those [who remain] … they have two choices: either to surrender, and if not, we will [restrict aid supply].” “This plan is fully consistent with the Law of Armed Conflict [and a field manual of the U.S. Department of Defense] that [states] … military siege is permissible. … You are able to do it as long as you enable … civilian[s] … to evacuate.” “If we take [northern Gaza], it will enable [many] Israelis to return to their homes … the distance between … northern Gaza [and some Israelis’ homes] is 1-2 miles. If we create such a buffer zone … [it will enable the resumption] of a lot of normal civilian activities. … [The southern Israeli city of] Sderot is still under threat [from] anti-tank weapons in the northern part of Gaza.” “What happens if the majority of the civilians don’t want to leave for whatever reason? Then … we will not exercise this plan. … My comprehensive plan [has been misunderstood] … Most [critics accuse me of trying to starve] the civilians of Gaza. … [In fact] it is the opposite. … Some of the more noisy political voices create the wrong impression, and create confusion about what is the real intent of this plan.” |