Almost five decades after the Yom Kippur war of 1973, Israel finds itself once more caught off guard by an unexpected attack. This serves as a stark reminder that stability in the Middle East remains an elusive and blood-stained illusion. In contrast to the sporadic confrontations with Palestinian forces in Gaza witnessed over the past three years, the current situation signals a full-fledged conflict orchestrated by Hamas and its allies. This conflict involves extensive rocket barrages, incursions into Israeli territory, and has resulted in casualties and captives among the Israeli population. Drawing parallels to the psychological impact experienced by Americans during the shock of September 11, the Israeli populace now faces a similar upheaval. Following the successful repulsion of the initial Palestinian attack by the Israeli military, the looming question centres on the subsequent course of action. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, having declared war, confronts limited favourable choices and is under mounting pressure to orchestrate a significant military response.
With the death toll reaching 250 Israelis and an undisclosed number taken hostage by Hamas, the prospect of an Israeli invasion of Gaza becomes a distinct possibility. Even the temporary reoccupation of the territory, an outcome that successive Israeli governments have diligently sought to avert, cannot be dismissed. In declaring war, Mr. Netanyahu assured Israelis that they would escalate the conflict with a magnitude and force previously unknown to the enemy. He emphasised that the Palestinian groups would bear a significant and consequential cost for their actions. A significant war could entail unforeseen consequences, potentially leading to substantial Palestinian casualties, including both civilians and fighters. Such an outcome could disrupt the diplomatic endeavours of President Biden and Mr. Netanyahu, who are working towards securing Saudi recognition of Israel in exchange for defence assurances from the United States.
Additionally, there might be mounting pressure on Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group overseeing southern Lebanon, to initiate a second front in northern Israel. This scenario mirrors the events of 2006 when Hezbollah opened a front in response to the capture and imprisonment of an Israeli soldier in Gaza. Iran, a declared adversary of Israel, plays a crucial supportive role for both Hamas and Hezbollah, providing them with weapons and intelligence. The conflict is set to rally Israel together in support of its government, at least temporarily. The opposition has halted its scheduled demonstrations against Mr. Netanyahu’s proposed judicial changes, complying with calls for reservists to assemble. Natan Sachs, Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, noted that it provides Mr. Netanyahu with “complete political cover to pursue his agenda.” However, Sachs noted that Mr. Netanyahu has previously resisted appeals to deploy thousands of troops into Gaza with the objective of dismantling armed Palestinian groups such as Hamas. This reluctance stems from concerns about the associated costs and the inevitable uncertainty surrounding the aftermath. “But the psychological impact on Israel is akin to that of 9/11,” he remarked. “Therefore, the considerations regarding costs may be substantially different this time.”
The perpetual question remains: What transpires in the aftermath, emphasized Mark Heller, a senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. Despite annual occurrences of limited Israeli military operations in the occupied territories, they have yet to yield any lasting solutions. “Intense pressure exists for a substantial incursion, aiming to ‘conclude with Hamas,’ but I hold the view that it won’t offer a lasting solution in the grand scheme of things,” remarked Mr. Heller. However, according to Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and foreign minister, a significant Israeli assault on Gaza appears almost inevitable, especially in the event of Israeli soldiers being taken hostage. Bildt, speaking on X, suggested, “If Hamas has captured Israeli soldiers and brought them to Gaza, the likelihood of a comprehensive Israeli operation into Gaza is high—another war. The same assumption would likely apply to Israeli citizens.”
Israel and Mr. Netanyahu have been cautious about deploying ground forces into Gaza. Even in 2002, during Ariel Sharon’s prime ministership when Israeli forces suppressed a Palestinian uprising in the West Bank, the government opted to refrain from sending substantial additional forces into Gaza, where Israeli settlements were present at that time. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its soldiers and citizens from Gaza while maintaining control over substantial portions of the occupied West Bank. The withdrawal’s inability to establish a lasting peace agreement has left Gaza in a state of neglect, virtually disconnected from other Palestinians in the West Bank and severely isolated by both Israel and Egypt. Israel and Egypt control Gaza’s borders and coastline, earning the region the epithet “an open-air prison” among Palestinians.
Following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and the 2006 conflict, an internal power struggle ensued between the Fatah movement led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the more radical Islamist Hamas movement. The power struggle concluded in 2007 with Hamas gaining control of the territory. Subsequently, Israel sought to intensify its isolation of Gaza even further. During the prolonged conflict of 2008 and 2009, Israeli forces penetrated Gaza and its population centers but opted against advancing too deeply into the territory or initiating a reoccupation. A cease-fire, brokered by Egypt, emerged after three weeks of warfare. Despite the assertions of successive Israeli governments that they no longer bear responsibility for Gaza after the 2005 withdrawal, various groups, including B’Tselem, which monitors human rights in the occupied territories, contend that Israel maintains substantial legal responsibilities and obligations for Gaza. This argument is grounded in Israel’s control over the borders and its considerable military dominance, as recognised under international humanitarian law.
Hamas has not provided a clear rationale for its decision to launch an attack at this moment. However, it could be interpreted as a reaction to the deepening ties between Israel and the Arab world, particularly with Saudi Arabia. The latter has been engaged in negotiations for a potential defense treaty with the United States, which, in exchange for normalising relations with Israel, might divert attention from the Palestinian cause. According to Amberin Zaman, an analyst for Al-Monitor, a Washington-based news website specializing in the Middle East, the anticipated scale of Israel’s response to the recent attacks may hinder or even completely derail U.S. initiatives for the normalisation of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. She conveyed this perspective in a message on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Since its establishment in 1948, Saudi Arabia has refrained from recognising Israel. Up until now, the kingdom had indicated that it would not entertain the prospect of normalising relations unless Israel consented to the establishment of a Palestinian state. However, even the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has openly expressed the possibility of a deal with Israel. In an interview with Fox News last month, he stated that discussions about normalisation were, “for the first time, real.” The duration of this conflict and the extent of casualties will now come into question. According to Mr. Sachs of Brookings, Hamas’s objectives might be more straightforward: seizing hostages to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, both in the West Bank and Gaza.
Aaron David Miller, a former American diplomat with experience in the Middle East, mentioned that Hamas’s discontent stems from the limited financial support from Arab nations to Gaza and the restrictions on workers obtaining permission to work in Israel. He described this as a symbolic move, emphasising that it serves as a reminder to the Israelis of Hamas’s presence and its ability to cause unforeseen damage. Israel, taken aback, must now grapple with the consequences of what Mr. Miller, currently associated with the Carnegie Endowment, labeled it as its “overconfidence, complacency, and reluctance to consider the possibility that Hamas could execute a cross-border attack of this nature.” According to Mr. Sachs, the consequences of the war and its aftermath will be extensive and will require a significant amount of time to become apparent. There will be investigations into the military and intelligence agencies, and the political leadership will not evade accountability either. Before anything else, as mentioned by Mr. Heller, the war takes precedence. “And these situations have a tendency to spiral out of control,” he remarked.
(The writer can be reached at dipaknewslive@gmail.com)
