TEHRAN- On May 12, the Israeli military announced 50 Israeli army casualties in Gaza – without distinguishing between the injured and the dead – the single highest casualty rate in a 24-hour time-frame inside the Strip since October 7.

It reflects what many analysts have alluded to. The Palestinian armed resistance forces against Israeli occupation forces (IOF) in Gaza has not been significantly dented as Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has stated. 

On Thursday, the occupation regime’s military said five of its paratroopers had been killed by Israeli tank shells in the northern Gaza city of Jabalia.  

Seven other troops were injured by tank fire, three of them remain in a serious condition, according to Israeli media. 

Whether the casualties were a result of “friendly fire” or subject to attacks by the armed wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – both of whom have video documented a growing number of operations against the invading forces in Jabalia on a daily basis over the past week – is up for debate. 

Sources familiar with the latest operations by armed Palestinian factions inside Gaza say they have received messages suggesting many surprises await the IOF in Jabalia and elsewhere.

The same sources say "the Qassam [armed wing of Hamas] and Saraya [al-Quds, armed wing of Palestinian Islamic Jihad] deserve credit for the number of casualties they have inflicted on the occupation’s army”. 

The pattern of Israeli media reports on IOF casualties in Gaza with such limited information highlights the level of censorship that the Israeli security apparatus has imposed on its media. 

Some Israelis have said the lack of media coverage on IOF casualties is aimed at avoiding public opposition growing against what is widely believed to be a far deadlier war for the IOF than what is being published. 

Experts point out that media censorship on the IOF serves security purposes for the occupation soldiers as Hamas is capable of using the reports as a source of intelligence gathering for its guerrilla-style operations in the enclave. 

Apart from the five Israeli troops killed by apparent “friendly fire”, the Israeli army announced that a sergeant was killed on Thursday in an operational accident when ammunition exploded. 

Six troops were announced dead in one day. All by accident or friendly fire raises question marks. Is the IOF facing a level of hysteria in Gaza, or is the media coverage trying to downplay the strength of Hamas?  

It's not the first time that the IOF has said its soldiers have been killed in Gaza by “friendly fire”; incidents have been cited that even include “trampling”. 

Having repeatedly declared victory in northern Gaza months ago while declaring the defeat of Hamas, the IOF is back in northern Gaza with large-scale operations to fight Hamas.

Reports say Israeli fighter jets are currently pounding areas north of Gaza City, including the Jabalia camp and the city of Beit Lahiya. The IOF has said it has reached the Jabalia camp’s city center.

But it had reached the city center before, which made the occupation army more exposed. 

This is while tank shells are landing in the city of Beit Hanoun, where the Israeli military has reportedly surrounded evacuation centers that have become the latest shelter for families fleeing Jabalia. 

It signals another Israeli raid in Beit Hanoun, which the occupation forces first attacked on October 27, 2023. 

Northern Gaza’s Beit Hanoun was said to be “not only dead, but no longer existing” by November 9, following an assessment of the Israeli destruction in the city. 

In the southernmost city of Rafah, Israeli officials say four IOF battalions have been mobilized to fully invade the city, others say seven. 600,000 Palestinians, many displaced before, are believed to have fled. 

The Israeli regime’s belief that invading Rafah would end Hamas and bring Netanyahu’s “total victory” promise is a far-fetched idea. 

If Rafah is the key to eliminating Hamas as Netanyahu's office claims, it is the location of Hamas headquarters, main governance, battalions, logistical supplies and many other

Hamas-related elements; why didn’t the IOF start its operations from Rafah more than seven months ago? 

It would have made much more logical sense as Tel Aviv had vast international support on October 7 than the global isolation it finds itself today with Spain now banning ships carrying weapons for the Israeli military from docking at Spanish ports. 

The IOF could have very easily started in Rafah on day one, and nobody would have opposed or raised any issue about the invasion. 

More importantly, what can an invasion of Rafah achieve for the IOF that it failed to achieve in Gaza City, Khan Younis and anywhere else that has already been invaded once, twice or thrice? 

Every point of the Gaza Strip that the IOF has invaded it failed to achieve the stated goals and Hamas has maintained its military presence in those areas. 

Reuters cites Yossi Mekelberg, an associate fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, as saying, “From Israel the options are either they end the war, and they withdraw, or they establish for all intents and purposes a military government there, and they control the entire territory for who knows how long, because once they leave an area, Hamas will reappear.” 

These two options have seen major divisions among Netanyahu’s war government play out in the public. Ending the war and withdrawing has been strongly advocated by Israeli minister Gadi Eisenkot, whose own son died fighting in Gaza. 

And there are fierce opponents of the second option – an Israeli military government in Gaza – for two reasons. 

The plan didn’t go down well in South Lebanon, where the Israeli military ended up withdrawing from in 2000 and Hezbollah emerged stronger. 

Secondly, the costs and manpower associated with this option being spearheaded by Netanyahu would have a $5.43 billion annual toll, according to a secret Israeli assessment seen by the biggest circulating Hebrew newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. 

The requirements for more troops would leave Tel Aviv exposed at its northern front with Hezbollah. 

The lack of a credible plan for the “day after” by Netanyahu has not only angered the United States but also Yoav Gallant, the Israeli minister for war who may have finally realized his long-held suspicions that Netanyahu is dragging out the war for his own personal survival. 

Hebrew reports also suggest that a dozen high-ranking Israeli security officials recently met to discuss the failure of the war now approaching its eighth month.