For weeks, the Israeli military has isolated the north of Gaza, conducting air strikes and ground attacks, including on residential areas and hospitals.
In back-to-back attacks on Beit Lahia and the nearby Jabalia refugee camp last Friday and Saturday, more than 100 people were killed in a single day. Limited aid is entering the area and more eviction orders have been issued to families in the north. But where will they go? And if they stay, what will be their fate? UN officials and other rights groups have warned that Israel is forcing Gaza residents to choose between leaving or starving.
The latest onslaught follows the killing last week of Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader and one of the men identified as most-wanted by Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it marked the beginning of the end of the war. But Palestinians in Gaza say those words carry little weight as they endure some of the most intense days of violence yet.
In this episode of Beyond the Headlines, host Nada AlTaher speaks to Tahani Mustafa, senior Palestine analyst at Crisis Group, and Avi Melamed, a former Israeli intelligence official and founder of Inside the Middle East Institute. She asks them about Israel’s strategy in the north of the strip and what its end-goal is, now that it has eliminated Hamas’ top leadership. We also hear from Ziad Mousa, a UN worker in Gaza city, who describes the dire situation there.
Below is the full transcript of this episode:
Ziad Mousa: This is Ziad, alive in the north of Gaza. Since December 2023, I've been displaced in the Daraj neighbourhood, after my home was destroyed by the Israeli military. You can now hear the continuous artillery shelling hitting Gaza city. Continuous, violent artillery shelling and F-16 warplane strikes continue to hit Gaza city and the northern governorates of the Gaza Strip.
Following the siege and military operations, especially in Jabalia, the crisis deepens and deepens. More civilians are trapped, besieged and constantly at risk of being killed.
Nada AlTaher: Ziad Mousa is one of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living through some of the most difficult days since Israel's war in Gaza began more than a year ago. For weeks, the Israeli military has isolated the north of the enclave, conducting air strikes and ground attacks, including on residential areas and hospitals.
Last week, Hamas leader, and one of Israel's most-wanted targets, Yahya Sinwar, was killed. So why is Israel still in northern Gaza? And why can't aid groups get in? In back-to-back attacks on Beit Lahia and the nearby Jabalia refugee camp, more than 100 people were killed in a single day. Bodies line the streets of Jabalia as ambulances continue to be blocked from entering. Gazans have been calling the north a “mass grave”.
Ziad works with the UN Human Rights Office to manage data collection on the ground. He paints a picture of a struggle for survival.
ZM: People here face harsh and unimaginable humanitarian conditions. Most displaced families escaped with just the clothes on their backs. Almost every family lacked essential supplies like blankets, mattresses, hygiene items, clothing and sanitary pads, especially for women and girls.
People are sleeping on the ground. In this harsh, cold weather, they are taking shelter in damaged buildings, burnt-out shops and football fields. I met some families who are literally living in a bathroom. These conditions are not just challenging. I can call them degrading and inhumane.
NA: The impossible conditions Ziad describes are compounded by the obstacles that aid workers, medical staff and rescue teams have to face.
ZM: Two out of three hospitals in the north are either shut down or barely functioning. International groups and the UN have not been allowed to enter the area. Even the Civil Defence has been blocked from rescuing the injured or retrieving the bodies of the dead.
Access to aid remains under the mercy of the Israeli military, and most probably it will not be allowed to enter. People can barely get one meal a day. The Israeli military is using these needs as a weapon.
NA: More forced displacement orders have been issued for families of the north. But where will they go? And if they stay, what will be their fate? UN officials and other rights groups have warned that Israel is forcing Gazan residents to choose between leaving or starving.
ZM: Despite this violence, people are still refusing to leave unless forced by direct threats, as they believe leaving means never coming back, just like those who were displaced to southern Gaza. This leaves them with a single option - we are here waiting to be killed.
NA: This is Beyond the Headlines, and I'm your host, Nada AlTaher. This week, we look at what Israel says its military goals in Gaza are, especially after Sanwar's killing. And we question what Israel plans on doing in Gaza after it decides to end its campaign.
Gaza resident 1: It's unlikely that the assassination of Yahya Sinwar will stop the war. Israel is not interested in just killing Sinwar. It wants to finish off Palestine, finish off Gaza, finish off the people.
Gaza resident 2: Of course, the war won't stop at all because this is just an excuse for them. Their end goal is to exterminate the people. They don't want the war to end at all.
Gaza resident 3: The war will not end until all of the Israeli hostages are released. And look what's happening now - the fighting in northern Gaza is intensifying. What end to the war?
NA: These voices from the heart of Gaza paint a bleak picture. The war will not end. For them, media jargon and press conferences about “the beginning of the end of the war” ring hollow.
For more than a year, they have had their hopes destroyed again and again, with every failed prospect of a ceasefire. Some believed for a while that their plight was taken seriously. But as time passes, with more than 42,000 Palestinians killed and counting, we are being increasingly told that Gazans see no point in speaking out any more, because it's become clear to them that nobody is coming to save them and that nobody is standing in the way of inevitable death. Not even the assassination of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the supposed orchestrator of the October 7 attacks.
Now that he's gone, who will fill his shoes? What will become of Hamas? And what does it mean for Gaza, where the war rages on in some of the deadliest days for Palestinians since the start of the conflict?
I speak about this with Tahani Mustafa, senior Palestine analyst at Crisis Group. Tahani, after Sinwar's killing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this is the beginning of the end of the war. We believed for a while that, when Israel killed Hamas leaders, it would declare Gaza safe and effectively end the war.
But since then, we've seen one of the most violent assaults on northern Gaza, which started almost three weeks ago, with a siege, starvation, killings and hospital attacks. So which is it? Is the war ending or getting worse?
Tahani Mustafa: The circumstantial evidence is indicative that Israel has no intention of ending this war immediately. When Netanyahu says this is the beginning of the end, I think what he's trying to get at is that he has reached or concluded one of Israel's prime military objectives, which was to kill who they claimed was the mastermind of the October 7 attacks.
What that actually means, within the Israeli narrative of how they kind of envision this campaign ending, is very different to how I think many of us would understand that to be, which is that Israel does not envision a permanent ceasefire. It does not envision a kind of “day after” in the sense of an end to the fighting, the reconstruction of Gaza and the withdrawal of Israeli troops.
For Israel, it ultimately is about ensuring it has reoccupation. We're talking about on the ground, a reoccupation of Gaza, alongside ensuring the enclave will never be in a situation to ever threaten Israel's sense of security again, which means we can never anticipate having any sort of viable administrative entity that's going to govern Gaza.
What we are seeing today is ultimately how Israel envisions the reality for Gaza for a very long time, which is a tent city in the ruins, Gaza dependent on humanitarian aid for everything, the continued displacement of people, the absence of any sense of permanency on that land. And we've seen no improvement in terms of the humanitarian condition. More aid has not been let through.
We've seen no scaling back of Israel's aerial bombardment or its siege of the north, as well as what we're now seeing also in the south. It's not like the south has been doing any better. Israel has continued to expand its war in Lebanon, to the extent that Hamas is now reluctant to name its next successor on the basis of security concerns. So it is very indicative that this had nothing to do with Sinwar.
We're not any closer to a ceasefire, despite all the noise around a ceasefire. So, I don't think this really makes a significant difference in the broader scheme of things. This doesn't shift the Israeli position, and it certainly hasn't shifted the international attitude towards Israel.
NA: The dramatic end to Sinwar, believed to be the orchestrator of the October 7 attacks, was shared in a video by the Israeli army. It was a victorious moment for Israel, but people have also said it showed Sinwar as a man who fought until his death, and not in a tunnel or hiding behind civilians.
We've spoken to Gazans, many who have expressed increasing anger towards Hamas. How do you think Sinwar's killing will affect Hamas as a group and public opinion towards it inside Gaza?
TM: Sinwar’s killing doesn't affect Hamas in any substantial way. Definitely, symbolically, it was a huge hit to the movement. But Hamas is not a centralised organisation dependent on particular figures, as much as western media and the Israelis like to make out that Palestinian politics is so centred on figures. That's not the case at all.
It's interesting, because Israel's release of the video actually had an adverse effect, not just among Palestinians, but even western audiences. It really humanised Sinwar, but more importantly it humanised the Palestinian resistance, right?
Now, this came against the backdrop of where Hamas was losing significant political support among Palestinians. In the past six months, its support has dropped, not just in Gaza, but also the West Bank. This also came against the backdrop of a time when Sinwar's popularity was actually seeing a bit of a spike.
Now this could actually end up having an adverse effect, where you could now see a spike of support for Hamas, not just in terms of its leadership, but in terms of the movement more broadly, especially at a time when it is able to recruit more and more on the ground.
It's seen something like an 80 per cent increase in terms of its recruitment. So if Israel was trying to sort of deter Palestinian resistance and kind of conduct a smear campaign, I think it's had the complete adverse effect.
NA: US and European officials, including French President Emmanuel Macron and US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin have called the killing of Sinwar an opportunity for the war in Gaza to end. Do you believe at this point that any diplomatic pressure can change the path forward on the Israeli side?
TM: Yes. It's a bit of a distortion from western media that has constantly, since the onset of this onslaught, tried to peddle the idea of Hamas and people like Sinwar as an obstacle to a ceasefire. But going by the information from numerous sources, especially Israeli media sources over the past six months, that have leaked all the numerous attempts Netanyahu has conducted to torpedo any attempt at a ceasefire, diplomatic pressure is definitely needed.
But not on Hamas, it's going to be needed on Israel. Netanyahu has proved he is not interested in a ceasefire. Every attempt has been derailed from the Israeli side. So if pressure is needed anywhere, it is needed on Israel now.
You know, Israel has a kind of an escape route, where it can now claim some level of victory. It can claim it has achieved at least one of its major military objectives, which is the killing of the supposed mastermind of the October 7 attacks. But we're not seeing that diplomatic pressure, we're not seeing any substantial pressure on Netanyahu to start entering negotiations in any good faith or in any serious manner.
NA: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Sinwar “stood in the way of a ceasefire in Gaza”. There has been rhetoric since his killing to suggest that the responsibility is now on a weakened Hamas to accept a ceasefire, but it neglects two main points. One is that Hamas had already agreed in principle to a proposed US plan in July that Israel later derailed, and changed several times. And number two, the impact of Ismail Haniyeh's killing as the main Hamas negotiator on the ceasefire talks.
How does Sinwar factor into the equation as an obstacle to a ceasefire?
TM: Sinwar wasn't an obstacle to a ceasefire. Sinwar simply refused to budge from Hamas’s position. So its terms had been put on the table, but it was unwilling to capitulate. That is exactly what the US and Israel want. They want capitulation. They do not want negotiations. They want a full surrender. That is something that someone as hardline as Sinwar was unwilling to provide.
It's precisely why Hamas selected someone like Sinwar. When Israel killed, I guess you could say, the last remaining moderate within the movement, someone like Haniyeh with that kind of influence, this was Hamas signalling that, if Israel wants to play hardball, it can equally play hardball. And so it put someone like Sinwar at the forefront. And that's exactly what Sinwar was giving them.
He was unwilling to bend to Israeli and US demands, which were, as I said, a total and complete surrender.
NA: With him gone, has Hamas lost its leverage to negotiate its crucial demands - the release of Palestinian detainees, the withdrawal of Israeli troops and the return of displaced residents to their homes? And what do you make of talks that Sinwar's body could be returned in exchange for the hostages?
TM: No, this doesn't put Hamas in any position now to cede to Israeli demands. This doesn't really change its position from when Sinwar was around. I think if anything, this has pushed Hamas into more of a corner because anyone who's going to come, whether it's a pragmatist, a moderate, or a radical, is not going to be in any position to capitulate.
At this point it would be suicide for the movement politically after everything Gazans have incurred. Half of the territory is now effectively reoccupied. Hamas has lost substantial chunks of its old leadership and I don't think we've seen any indication from Hamas that it is willing now to sort of accept anything beyond what has been asked for back in July, under the US-brokered agreement.
And with regards to the idea of exchanging Sinwar's body for the hostages, again, I wouldn't really make much of it. I don't think this is something that necessarily Hamas would engage with. I don't think Hamas is really using the hostages at this point as a significant playing card, but it is still a playing card for the group.
NA: You mentioned that Hamas is staying quiet for security purposes about who a successor could be. Do we have any idea who that person could be?
TM: The most likely candidate is probably going to be Khalil Al Hayya. I think Khaled Meshaal himself, from what we've heard from within Hamas, is reluctant to take the position of leader of the movement right now, given Israel's rampant campaign of assassinations.
The question is who is going to be the main liaison person internally now, which is going to make things a lot harder in terms of communication, especially when it comes to talks. Because now, who are you going to communicate internally with?
There are a number of names that have been put forward, but it seems most likely that it could well be Yahya Sinwar's brother, Mohammed Sinwar.
NA: What comes next will depend on what Netanyahu's strategy is in Gaza. Public statements from world leaders trying to gain momentum from Sinwar's killing to end the war have yet to bring about any change. Especially as the realities on the ground seem out of sync with what Israel is saying it's doing in Gaza.
I'm joined by Avi Melamed, former Israeli intelligence official and founder of Inside the Middle East Institute, to try to understand exactly what it is that Israel is trying to achieve at this point.
Avi, since the beginning of Israel's war on Gaza, Israel said its goal is to eliminate Hamas's military capabilities and infrastructure. It has killed prominent figures in the group like Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Yahya Sinwar, destroying tunnels, killing fighters and closing the border with Egypt. All of that indicates that Israel is on one specific path.
However, right now, Israeli sources are saying, and what we're seeing on the ground in northern Gaza, is Israel is planning to turn the north into some sort of military zone. What is Israel's military strategy inside Gaza?
Avi Melamed: To the best of my understanding, Israel is now concluding a set of military operations that are supposed to be the base to ensure two major things. One thing is to ensure that Hamas will not be able to rebuild its military power, and the other thing is that it will be the beginning of scaffoldings to enable regional players, backed by the international community, to start taking responsibility for the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip.
I don't think that this is long term, per se. I think that at some point we will see, and I hope that will be the case, that there is a parallel effort to start moving towards the building of those scaffoldings I was talking about. This is, I would say, the short and the mid term. I would expect that during this short and mid term, we could expect the presence of Israeli military operations in a lower scale or in a lower volume.
Of course, the long time has other components, what I call a regional envelope. It consists of major players in the region, like the Saudis, Egypt and the UAE, that have the abilities to come forward and to be proactively involved in the rebuilding of Gaza, and basically backing up the emergence of a Palestinian power that will rule and basically be responsible for the people of Gaza.
NA: Israel is preventing the entry of aid to Palestinians. Israel has a responsibility to bring that aid in. The US has told Israel that if you don't do better, then we're going to shut down the supplies of weapons. Do you think that Israel has a responsibility to bring in more aid?
We have only seen 797 aid lorries enter Gaza this month, and that's just a bit more than what used to enter in a single day before the war.
AM: From a humanitarian perspective, I have no doubt that currently Israel has to provide all the needs of the Palestinians, the civilians in Gaza, and to do its utmost efforts to make sure the difficult conditions the Palestinians in Gaza are experiencing will be as limited as possible.
So, of course, there is a responsibility of Israel to make sure to provide the Palestinians in Gaza Strip with humanitarian aid and all the things they need. I told you, and I'm saying it very clearly, I have no joy seeing innocent people and kids suffering from such conditions. And I think that most of the Israelis share my opinion.
NA: There's a power vacuum right now. So arguably Hamas doesn't rule the enclave any more and its military leaders have been eliminated. There is nothing to rule in Gaza any more because there is no infrastructure left. So right now, wouldn't you think it's the prime time for an actual negotiation, a discussion to be had over what happens to Gaza, if the goal really was to just remove Hamas from power?
AM: Yes, I agree with you. This is, potentially, a good time to start moving towards the diplomatic channel and towards the nonviolent channel. But who exactly is going to take over the Gaza Strip? What's the mechanism that is going to be established to make sure Hamas will not restore its power within months, including weapons, including control over the society?
NA: A year of war and mass destruction has radicalised, definitely, little boys who've lost their fathers. Even the women, maybe, who have lost their children. As you know, the civilian death toll is incredibly high. So is that something Israel needs to consider in Gaza?
AM: Following the elimination of Yahya Sinwar, some people, Palestinians and other Arabs, are saying he was the symbol of the resistance. He was the one fighting the enemy to the last breath, throwing a stick at a drone.
In other words, there are Palestinian and Arab voices who, in spite of the destruction that Hamas has inflicted on Gaza Strip, still romanticise and idealise Hamas and the disaster it brought on the people of Gaza.
And then there is an opposite narrative in the Arab world and the Palestinian world, which basically says, this person, Sinwar, and Hamas dragged the Palestinian people to the biggest catastrophe ever. I'm looking to the future and this is my question - will the Palestinian people take the role of, let's praise and glorify and romanticise somebody who destroyed our own people? Meaning somebody like Yahya Sinwar. Or let us take lessons. Let us really calculate where we want to go.
I think this is a process that has to take place within Israeli society. Some Israeli right-wing politicians are talking today about re-establishing Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip. To the best of my understanding, most Israelis reject that.
NA: That's it for Beyond the Headlines this week. This episode was produced by Rakan Abed El Rahman and Ban Barkawi, with additional help from Mahmoud Rida, Juman Jarallah and Adel Ibrahim.
It was audio engineered by Arthur Eddyson. Yasmin Altaji is our assistant producer and Doaa Farid is our editor. And I'm your host, Nada AlTaher.
