Following a brief truce negotiated between Israel and Hamas for the release of some hostages, the bombarding of Gaza has re-started. Israel’s intent remains the same: to eradicate Hamas. Hamas’ intent also remains the same: to eradicate Israel. Arguably, neither of them is succeeding in their efforts to do just that. Hamas’ attacks on the 7th of October 2023 only reignited Israel’s animosity. It actually made it worse by targeting innocent civilians with such brutality. Similarly, although Israel’s attacks on Gaza will undoubtably weaken Hamas’ infrastructures, resources and leadership, it is unlikely to eliminate the problem. This is for two sets of reasons. Firstly, too many people are part of Hamas, there are many other groups that support it and that are strategically placed in the region to attack Israel and some of Hamas’ leadership is not even in Gaza. Secondly, and more profoundly, Hamas is first and foremost an ideology, which is hardly going to be eradicated through a war that in many ways proves the points Hamas makes to appeal to Palestinians.
Hamas’ rhetoric, well known for years before this war, calls for a “destruction of Israel” through violent means. Such an idea, when perpetuated, can be pursued by any group of people willing to do so. Israel’s attack on Hamas, having affected civilians so extensively, is likely to foster extremism amongst the civilians who are witnessing these horrific things. In fact, even though Hamas has been governing Gaza for years now, not all Palestinians were in line with their ideology. However, the extent this war has reached is likely to change that. As civilians in Gaza are not “casualties” but surpass in numbers the original targets, Israel might just be creating a bigger problem for itself. Historically, where wars leave destruction, poverty and traumatised and enraged people, the ground is always very fertile for extremisms of a terrorist nature. Given that Israel cannot continue this strategy of annihilation forever, in a few years we might see the effects of these attacks backfire. To make the situation worse, Netanyahu has recently declared to be considering attacks on the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. This has been explained stating that the PA, although it has chosen a different approach, ultimately shares Hamas’ goal of destroying Israel. Proceeding with such attacks would inevitably prolong the war and possibly it would trigger the response of other anti-Israel groups in the region, thus making the war even broader. Considering the stated aim of destroying Hamas is not viable, and the declared intention to prolong and extend this war beyond Hamas, a question emerges: who is really benefitting from this war?
Undoubtedly, Israeli wanted their government to react to the attacks suffered, but would they benefit from a prolonged war unlikely to eradicate Hamas and that makes them vulnerable to future attacks? Most likely not. Furthermore, the lack of proportionality showed by the Israeli government has turned a good part of the public opinion against Israel, which has led to an increase in antisemitism which surely does not benefit Jews inside and outside Israel. It is, however, the case that as long as this war is going Netanyahu will stay in power. Most importantly he will not be held accountable for his actions, that is, his failure to prevent the attacks of the 7th of October 2023 and the commission of war crimes in Gaza. There is, in fact, evidence revealing that the Israeli forces were aware of Hamas’ plan but failed to take it seriously. Considering more than a thousand Israeli died, it is impossible to imagine that Netanyahu would not be held accountable for it. Similarly, it cannot be excluded that he would be tried for war crimes by the international community, whose initial support for Israel is wearing thin. Therefore, it appears clear that a prolonged war might be the only way for Netanyahu to shield himself. Just like Putin’s aim to stop Ukraine from joining the EU and NATO is better served by continuing the war, Netanyahu’s goal to stay in power can only be pursued through a longer, wider, war. In light of this we should also consider the unwavering support that some European countries and the US are giving to Netanyahu.
Italy, France and Germany recently called on the European Union to impose ad hoc sanctions against Hamas and its supporters. A joint letter written by the countries’ foreign ministers states that “the swift adoption of this sanctions regime will enable us to send a strong political message about the European Union’s commitment against Hamas and our solidarity with Israel”. Given the proven limited effectiveness of sanctions, these sanctions’ primary aim is to send a message to Hamas and its supporters. As that may be, western countries should also consider what message they are sending to Palestinians and to all other civilians who might find themselves in the same situation in the future. The same goes for the US, who has recently vetoed a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Although their strong support of Israel was not particularly misplaced at the start of this war, its developments should probably call for a reassessment of the extent of their support to Netanyahu’s current actions. Not doing so might mean to not only place themselves on the wrong side of history but also to contribute to create a bigger problem which they will have to deal with later down the line. In fact, if Hamas is not eradicated, as it was argued would be unfeasible to do, what is left is a fertile ground for more groups like Hamas and a highly destabilised region that will trouble the West for years to come.
This is especially so for the international community does not seem to have a plan for the future. Although most agree that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza, there is no actual plan as to who should replace them. Disagreements on this point have already emerged. Whilst Israel has declared its intention to put Gaza under its military control once the war is over, the US seems to support the return of the PA in Gaza, which would mean having the West Bank and Gaza under the same authority. Nonetheless, Fatah was already voted out of Gaza in the 2006 elections where Palestinians voted against them and in favour of Hamas due to Fatah being perceived as corrupted and incapable of protecting Palestinian interests. Furthermore, with all the due differences, it is also true that Fatah ultimately shares Hamas’ rooted hostility towards Israel and their ability and willingness to finally implement the two states solution is dubious. Therefore, a concerted effort from the international community, with the MENA countries having a leading role, should be focused on envisioning and pursuing a political strategy to change the leadership in Palestine which might ultimately pave the way to the realisation of the two states solutions. In fact, as out of reach as it might currently seem, the two states solution remains the only long-term viable option to resolve the conflict and stabilise the region.
To conclude, the beyond aggressive strategy of war currently implemented by Israel risks having the opposite effect of that allegedly pursued, thus creating more hostility that will ultimately lead to more violence in the future. Furthermore, the unwavering support of part of the West may be misplaced. Ultimately, in the name of the fight against terrorism the EU and the US might be facilitating a war that has Netanyahu as its sole beneficiary. Therefore, they should reassess the extent of their support and focus their efforts away from military action and towards pursuing a political strategy for the future of the region.
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations
