Hamas and the Capture of Israeli Soldiers… a Strategic Option That Confuses the Occupation.

In the context of the ongoing escalation in Gaza, and with the increasing field operations of the Palestinian resistance, an important strategic option has surfaced in the political and military circles of the Zionist entity: the possibility that Hamas may resort to capturing Israeli soldiers during clashes or through special operations behind enemy lines.
This option   which now seems more likely than ever  is not a limited tactical move, but rather a strategic direction with dimensions that extend beyond the battlefield to reach into the heart of Israeli society and its political balances.
Over the years the resistance has accumulated significant experience in this domain. Some of its attempts succeeded and led to exchange deals, as happened in the case of soldier Gilad Shalit, while others are still ongoing since October 7, during which the resistance captured more than 250 prisoners   48 of whom remain in the resistance’s hands. These are the soldiers taken from their tank and military positions. In past deals the resistance released settlers, female conscripts, reservists, and ill soldiers. With the Israeli army failing to achieve a decisive outcome after more than 700 days of aggression against Gaza, the option of capturing soldiers becomes a ready card on the table, giving the resistance additional leverage and deepening the occupation’s predicament.

Why the Option of Capturing Soldiers Now?

The decision to move toward this option stems from several considerations: First, the resistance understands that any capture operation constitutes a direct blow to the prestige of the Israeli army, which presents itself as capable of full control over Gaza.

 Second: Capturing soldiers opens the door to new negotiations for exchange deals, which restores hope to thousands of Palestinian prisoners in the occupation’s jails.
Third: Such operations leave a profound psychological impact within Israeli society, as the fate of the soldiers becomes a public opinion issue that pressures both the government and the army.
There are also considerations related to the internal balance within the Zionist entity, as the army and the government are experiencing clear disagreements over the management of operations in Gaza, while the opposition exploits these gaps to direct criticism.

In such a climate, any success by the resistance in capturing soldiers would have a doubled impact, as it opens a new front of accusations and tensions within the Israeli establishment itself.

The Anticipated Impact of Captive-Taking Operations on Israel’s Army and Society

The Israeli army always places the issue of missing or captured soldiers at the top of its priorities, not only for humanitarian reasons, but because the matter touches on society’s trust in the army. Any capture operation means that Israeli forces are unable to protect themselves, which undermines the morale of soldiers in the field and makes service in Gaza a constant source of concern.
As for Israeli society, it views this issue with exceptional sensitivity; in the past, the case of a single soldier turned into a political crisis that shook the government and forced it into difficult negotiations. Accordingly, the capture of more than one soldier by the resistance would create an unprecedented state of internal pressure, weakening the government and intensifying divisions within Israel.

Previous Experiences and Attempts to Capture Occupation Soldiers
The resistance has not recently introduced this option; there is a long record of attempts that confirm the seriousness of this approach. For example, the resistance attempted to carry out a qualitative operation that was not completed but proved its ability to penetrate the army’s system. In Khan Younis, an attempt was made to target Israeli truck drivers, with the aim not only of direct capture but also of testing the army’s ability to respond to such operations. In the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, similar operations emerged, focused on inflicting direct losses on the army, while at the same time reflecting the resistance’s constant search for opportunities to seize soldiers alive.
These attempts, despite the obstacles they faced, formed a cumulative experience that reinforced the resistance’s confidence in its ability to achieve greater success in the future, and, most importantly, they exposed gaps in the Israeli military apparatus that can be built upon in subsequent operations

Possible Scenarios for the Option of Capturing (Soldiers)
By reading the field and political situation, three main scenarios can be envisaged for how the resistance will deal with the option of capturing
First: limited capture — the resistance succeeds in capturing one or two soldiers through a swift operation.
This scenario has a wide psychological and media impact, but it remains limited unless it is used as a negotiating card.

Second: Negotiatory capture — where the resistance holds soldiers in its custody and begins to use them as a tool of pressure to secure a broad exchange deal. Here, the issue turns into a major political crisis inside Israel, and the government is forced to make concessions

Third: collective capture — the most dangerous scenario, in which the resistance seeks to capture a group of soldiers at once through an organized attack on a military site. This was seen in the recent assault by an entire unit of the Qassam Brigades on an Israeli army command post east of Khan Younis a few weeks ago, where attempts were made to capture soldiers. The operation ended with the martyrdom of some resistance fighters and the killing and wounding of several Israeli soldiers, and the occupation considered it a major breach in its ranks that nearly succeeded in capturing a number of soldiers.

This scenario would constitute a strategic shock to the Israeli army and trigger a political earthquake in Tel Aviv, and it might redraw the rules of the conflict entirely."

Political and Strategic Repercussions on the Occupation

The resistance’s success in any of these scenarios would lead to far-reaching strategic consequences.
At the political level, divisions between the government, the army, and the opposition will deepen, weakening Israel’s ability to formulate a unified policy toward Gaza.
At the international level, the image of the resistance as an organized force capable of imposing its conditions will be strengthened, while the image of Israel   engaged in a long war with no tangible results   will decline.

Challenges Facing the Resistance

Despite the validity of this option, its implementation is not easy. The occupation possesses advanced intelligence capabilities and uses technology to monitor all movements inside Gaza; any attempt to capture would carry great risks for the fighters carrying it out and could be met with fierce Israeli military operations.

Moreover, holding and managing captives in a complex environment like Gaza requires high-level security and logistical arrangements. Nevertheless, the resistance, having experience in this path before, is aware of these challenges and works to overcome them through various means.

Captivity as a Tool to Change the Rules of the Game in the Conflict with Israel

The option of capturing Israeli soldiers today represents an extremely important strategic card in the hands of the Palestinian resistance; it strikes at the heart of the Israeli equation and reveals the fragility of the army, society, and politics all at once. Past experiences have proven that the resistance has the capability and the will to pursue this path, and the possible scenarios indicate that any success on this front would radically change the rules of the game.
Israel entered Gaza convinced it could deliver a decisive victory and bring the Strip under control. But any abduction would underscore its failure to meet those goals, highlighting its entanglement in a complex quagmire with no clear way out.
For the resistance, this option opens the door wide to a new stage of the conflict, in which the occupation is placed on the defensive, while the resistance holds the cards of power and pressure that make it more influential over the course of events at the internal, regional, and international levels.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the article in Arabic