There is little doubt that the Middle East is now hurtling towards a veritable catastrophe. It is hard to be certain, but the Hamas may have had the following objectives in mind when it committed the horrific attacks on Israeli citizens:
> To draw international attention to the Palestinian issue which was languishing;
> To reverse the rapprochement that was taking place between Saudi Arabia and Israel on the one hand and the normalization that was taking place due to the Abraham Accords;
> To avoid Hamas (itself) becoming irrelevant to the political dynamics of the Middle East; and
> To provoke a massive Israeli response which will most certainly lead to large civilian casualties taking the focus away from atrocities committed by Hamas and drawing attention right back to Israel and its nefarious policies.
If the above was indeed the original aim of Hamas, then it has certainly achieved it in substantial measure. While there has been understandable sympathy for Israel, there have also been pro-Palestinian protests and increased spotlight on Israel’s polices in the West. And while Bahrain and UAE may have been critical of Hamas, other States have either been careful (Saudi Arabia) or openly supportive of Hamas and critical of Israel (Qatar). The rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel has been halted in its tracks and the Abraham Accords are under severe stress. It is also sadly true that Hamas has really not elicited the kind of opprobrium that one might have expected after the horrific attacks they unleashed on Israel. What is more, Israel appears on the brink of launching a massive retaliatory strike on what it believes are Hamas targets in the North of Gaza. Israeli Defence Forces asking a million Palestinians to shift to the South of Gaza has already been characterised as a “humanitarian disaster” by the UN. It is all but certain that Israel will carry out a ground invasion of Gaza. If it does, it will play precisely into the hands of Hamas. In such an eventuality, huge civilian casualties may be expected. Israel thus finds itself in a catch-22 situation from which there is no escape.
There is also the “Arab Street” factor. Following a ground invasion, if that happens, the street will react strongly to Palestinian civilian casualties and will force their leaders to take a more sympathetic line in favour of Palestinian aspirations. Arab countries may then solidly rally behind the Palestinian cause.
The question as to why some observers see a moral equivalence between Israel’s nefarious policies and the violent tactics used by Hamas, goes to the heart of what is referred to as the “root causes” of a conflict or as to who committed the original sin. This leads to a situation where supporters of the Palestinian cause will dwell on how Israel has deprived the Palestinians of all rights and created the conditions for a movement like Hamas to emerge and flourish. With equal vehemence, supporters of Israel will refer to the barbarity that characterises the actions of Hamas. There is no winning this argument. But there must be universal condemnation of actions such as the one resorted to by Hamas against innocent citizens along with serious attempts by the international community to resolve the underlying causes of a conflict as longstanding and as intractable as the Palestinian one.
The argument that Hamas does not represent the legitimate aspirations of all Palestinians will doubtless be countered by the argument of some that Bibi Netanyahu does not represent all of the Israeli people. The fact remains however that Netanyahu is the legitimate Prime Minister of Israel and therefore carries the greater burden of accountability for his actions.
The other issue concerning Hamas and Israel is that one is a state entity and the other a non-state actor. States, by definition, are held to higher standards of behaviour than non-state actors especially since the latter have not subscribed to instruments like the Hague Convention, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention against Torture. There is nevertheless an increasing tendency to hold non-state actors to account and to higher standards. This is reflective of the general revulsion towards terrorism felt by the public in democratic countries. Yet, as the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said: We democracies distinguish ourselves from terrorists by striving for a different standard even when it is difficult and holding ourselves accountable when we fall short.” It is far from clear that Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister Netanyahu will heed this sensible advice given to him by the American Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.
At the time of writing this, Israel has unleashed the fiercest bombing ever in Gaza: a region with the densest population in the world. The air strikes are widely believed to be a precursor to a frightful ground invasion. It is hard not to have the presentiment of an impending calamity!
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 