The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel has triggered a renewed wave of tensions in the Middle East, characterized by a series of military exchanges that have far-reaching implications. Over the weekend, Hamas fighters, based in the besieged Gaza Strip, launched an unprecedented and forceful attack on Israel. They fired numerous rockets targeting various regions in the southern part of Israel, and some even managed to breach the barrier fence that demarcates the border between Gaza and Israel.
In retaliation for these attacks, Israel conducted air strikes on Gaza on Saturday, marking an extraordinary assault on the security barrier that regulates Palestinian movement to and from Israel. In the past 24 hours alone, the Israeli Air Force unleashed a staggering amount of munitions and explosives upon the Gaza Strip. These airstrikes targeted a wide range of structures, including high-rise residential buildings, businesses, places of worship such as mosques, critical healthcare facilities like hospitals, and financial institutions. Consequently, the current death toll in Gaza stands over 900 Palestinians, as reported by health officials. In parallel, Israeli medical services have reported over 1000 Israelis killed. The crisis has also extended beyond Gaza, with 17 Palestinians losing their lives in the occupied West Bank, and Israeli shelling in southern Lebanon resulting in the deaths of four Hezbollah fighters.
Israel has declared its intention to impose a comprehensive blockade on Gaza, encompassing restrictions on the entry of vital supplies such as food and fuel. This announcement raises serious concerns, especially in light of the increasing indications of a potential ground operation. It is crucial to emphasize that, according to UN statutes, a siege imposed by the Israeli army with the explicit aim of depriving a civilian population of essential resources constitutes a war crime. The international community must unequivocally call for a thorough and impartial investigation into these events to ensure accountability for any potential violations of international humanitarian law.
A Divided International Response
In Western capitals, responsibility for the recent events was squarely attributed to Hamas, characterizing them as a "terrorist attack." Statements from the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Italy, and France consistently emphasized Israel's right to self-defense.
However, these statements largely omitted reference to the increased incidents of Israeli settler violence in the occupied West Bank, tensions at Al Aqsa mosque, and the substantial civilian casualties resulting from Israeli airstrikes in Gaza throughout the year.
In contrast, Russia, China, Turkey, the African Union, and the United Arab Emirates have all called for de-escalation and a swift return to internationally endorsed peace negotiations. These nations have expressed their readiness to intensify diplomatic initiatives to mediate the crisis, underscoring that a two-state solution remains the paramount path toward achieving lasting regional peace.
The European Union has issued a condemnation of the recent developments, expressing its profound dismay at the numerous indiscriminate attacks launched by Hamas on various locations in Israel. However, on 09 September, a public disagreement surfaced within the European Commission regarding the proposition to freeze aid to the Palestinian Authority. This discord underscores the deepening divisions in opinions among EU member states concerning their response to the ongoing conflict. EU member states hold divergent positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with some advocating for a more robust stance against Hamas, while others emphasize the importance of providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population. These complex dynamics have placed considerable strain on the EU's ability to formulate a unified and cohesive approach to the situation.
During the 27th EU-GCC Joint Ministerial Council meeting, the EU-GCC Joint Ministerial Council declaration expressessed deep concern about Israel-Gaza developments, condemning attacks on civilians and emphasizing adherence to international law. It called for hostage release, humanitarian access, and stresseed the need for a political solution to prevent ongoing violence. The declaration further reaffirmed commitment to a two-state solution.
The Motivations That Propel Hamas's Actions
The factors driving Hamas to initiate its incursion into Israel are multifaceted. One key element may have been the opportune timing, as external powers were preoccupied with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This distraction from the international community could have presented Hamas with an advantageous window of opportunity.
Additionally, Hamas may have calculated that disrupting the diplomatic efforts led by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to negotiate a tripartite agreement was strategically beneficial. Such an agreement could potentially lead to the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, a prospect that concerns Hamas and the broader Palestinian population. They fear that such a development might relegate their cause to a lower priority on the global agenda.
In essence, Hamas seized the moment to assert its agenda, taking advantage of the external circumstances and the potential shifts in regional dynamics to advance its objectives.
What Lies Ahead?
The current Hamas-Israeli conflict presents a complex set of challenges and potential scenarios that warrant careful consideration. One of the primary concerns is the prospect of a full-scale Israeli military operation within densely populated areas, which would undoubtedly result in civilian casualties. Israel's advanced weaponry, often supplied by the United States, could draw international condemnation, shifting the spotlight onto both Israel and its American ally. This would likely exert significant pressure on Israel to halt its military campaign. The situation in Gaza has become even more complex due to the presence of at least a hundred Israeli captives, although the exact number remains unclear. Hamas could potentially use these captives as human shields, further complicating any Israeli military operation in the area.
However, the second problem lies in the aftermath of a successful Israeli military operation. If Israel were to achieve a decisive victory, it would find itself in control of Gaza, raising crucial questions about how to manage the situation moving forward. It's important to note that Israel has previously withdrawn from Gaza in 2005, and the prospect of reoccupying the territory is not a desirable outcome for Israeli leadership. Consequently, any military action would need to be carefully weighed against the long-term consequences and potential challenges that would arise post-conflict.
On the other hand, Hezbollah might seek to encourage Palestinian groups in Lebanon to become involved in the conflict, potentially opening a second front for Israel in the north. This scenario has previously unfolded, notably during the 2021 Gaza war and again in April, when tensions were escalating around the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Depending on how Israel responds to the attacks that occurred on October 7th, Hezbollah may become directly involved in the conflict, especially if violence escalates in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This could have potentially destructive consequences for Lebanon, in addition to the damage that Hezbollah missiles might inflict inside Israel.
One conceivable scenario involves a disruption of the potential reconciliation efforts between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In recent years, there have been significant diplomatic developments in the region, including the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. These normalization agreements signaled a shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics, with some Arab countries moving toward greater engagement with Israel. The disruption of the reconciliation process between Israel and Saudi Arabia would not only affect their bilateral relations but also have broader regional implications. It could slow down or even reverse the trend of Arab nations gradually recognizing Israel, potentially leading to increased regional tensions and uncertainty.
The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel is emblematic of a deeply entrenched and intricate issue with far-reaching consequences. The quest for a peaceful resolution must prioritize the safety and well-being of civilians on both sides while addressing the root causes of the conflict. International diplomacy and mediation are critical components in achieving a sustainable ceasefire in the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel. As the hostilities persist, it is increasingly imperative for the international community to exert pressure on all parties involved to adhere to international law and humanitarian principles. A lasting ceasefire is not only in the interest of the directly affected parties but also crucial for regional stability and global peace.