Amir Makhoul, Progress Policy Centre
Introduction
Minister Galant announced the Israeli government’s plan for war on Gaza, which includes a ground invasion, long-term presence, and the establishment of a civilian authority under international supervision. He previously stated that the area of Gaza will shrink with the creation of a buffer zone. On the other hand, in his press briefing on October 20th, Blinken declared that it is not only Israel’s right but also its duty to defend its citizens. He acknowledged that civilians will inevitably suffer in wars, emphasizing Israel’s obligation to protect its people.
The northern front with Lebanon has transitioned from a phase of escalation to a dangerous state of daily military clashes that could escalate into a comprehensive and devastating war. This is contrary to the estimations of both sides, who had indicated that neither of them seeks to surpass the stage preceding war. However, it seems that the situation is approaching its limit, which will be sure to affect priorities.
Meanwhile, serious Israeli analytical voices are calling for a preemptive strike on the northern front since, after the Gaza plan is completed, it would be unacceptable to have a force on the northern front ten times stronger than Hamas. Conversely, other voices have emphasized the need for international pressure to uphold the 1701 ceasefire agreement.
Analysis
It is noticeable that Netanyahu’s government has not officially declared a state of war and currently lacks a clear objective following the “Operation Supreme Flood” on October 7th. Revenge, shock, and a sense of failure dominate the situation. The initial American plan was demographic change in Gaza and forced relocation to Sinai and then to other countries as refugees. However, it is currently facing obstacles due to the firm positions of the Palestinians, Egyptians, and Jordanians. The formation of the war government, led by Gantz, and the neutralization of most Likud, Zionist Religious, and Haredi ministers mark the beginning of crystallizing a long-term Israeli plan that includes shrinking Gaza’s Palestinian territory, pushing its population south, causing extensive destruction, eliminating Hamas and its authority, and ensuring the sustainability of these measures through a buffer zone and a civilian authority overseeing the affairs of Gazans under international sponsorship. This is a model that Israel attempted to apply to Lebanon four decades ago and failed.
The Israeli government is supported by the American administration and the European Union so far. It seeks to undermine and eliminate Hamas according to its statements, but it also seeks to exclude any presence of the Palestinian Authority (PA) or the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) from forming the basis for the demand for a Palestinian state. It is important to note the absolute rejection by the Palestinian presidency, the PA, and the PLO of any return to the rule in Gaza by the Israeli occupation, despite the fact that they are not actors in Gaza: neither in law, nor in practice.
Additionally, the military, security, and cyber shocks to which Israel has been subjected have not yet translated into a fundamental change in the approach to the long-standing occupation. No political force in Israel has proposed a solution or a just resolution. Even the White House spokesperson for national security affairs, John Kirby, openly stated that it is not the appropriate time to talk about politics and the two-state solution, instead emphasisng the unwavering American support for Israel and the necessity of eliminating Hamas.
President Biden communicated before Congress the demand to allocate huge emergency budgets to support Israel in its war in line with the support for Ukraine, making reference to the Indian-Arab Gulf-Israeli-European trade corridor project. This points to the strategic interest of the United States in protecting its international interests and priorities, which have been affected due to Israel’s diminishing regional weight and deterrent power. This is an indication of the changes in the global system and the damage to American influence and its renewed pursuit to replace it with direct military presence. It is evident that any Israeli failure to achieve its goals, as defined by the war government with the participation of Blinken and Biden in two separate sessions, will have repercussions on American influence and the priorities of this great power.
It is important to note that any statements regarding the goals of the war are not necessarily the actual goals or priorities. Even the “Galant Plan” falls within the tactics of “hybrid warfare” that seeks the enemy’s collapse before the war begins, or its collapse before the next stage of the war begins. These statements should be considered preliminary, psychological warfare, reinforced by events on the ground in the Gaza Strip: the deliberate bombings aimed at pushing the population southwards and seizing the opportunity for displacement if available; the re-establishment of Israeli control over the northern Gaza Strip where the Israeli settlements evacuated in 2005 as part of the plan to disengage from Gaza and the northern West Bank. It is worth mentioning that earlier this year, the Israeli Knesset canceled the disengagement law in order to resettle the northern West Bank, and voices called for resettling the northern Gaza Strip.
The aggression on Gaza is accompanied by a dangerous escalation of aggression in the West Bank, perpetuated jointly between the army, the government, and the terrorist gangs of “hilltop youth”, as well as a campaign of terrorism against the Palestinian citizens in Israel. In response, there is an increasing number of popular protests globally against the aggression on Gaza and the targeting of its residents, arguing that the full responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe lies with the Israeli government, the American administration, and most major European countries. As it becomes clear that the Israeli goal goes beyond the spirit of revenge for the “Storm of Al-Aqsa” operation on October 7th and the tragic targeting of civilians, Gaza is now facing acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. This global protest aligns with the Arab popular outrage and the firm official Arab stance. The disparity between popular forms of spreading information and traditional media has led to visible cracks in the Western media system and public opinion industries, as those who have committed crimes against the Palestinians and justified these crimes and fabrications now begin to retreat from some of these positions and start to show some sympathy towards the Palestinian humanitarian catastrophe.
Conclusion
Israel’s attempt, supported by the US, to engineer the Palestinian people has proven to be an impossible task. The Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause will remain at the forefront of the global agenda until a just solution is achieved.
The current situation does not have clear endings. Not everything planned by Israel and the US leads to success, even from their own perspective. President Biden admitted the failure of US goals in the region after the September 2001 attacks. However, the situation is still undoubtedly catastrophic from the Palestinian perspective.
Strategically, there is a growing sense of a unified Arab stance, as seen in the Arab-international conference called for by Egypt. Egypt now represents the most challenging regional power to the US-Israeli project.
The decline in Israeli and American influence regionally, along with changes in the global system, will be decisive strategic factors.
The issue of prisoners and humanitarian exchanges has become a top priority on the international and Israeli agendas, despite efforts to downplay and silence the prisoners’ families.
