Tag: gaza
Proactive would be better
Tehran is justifying its barrage of more than 300 drones, cruise and ballistic missiles fired at Israel last weekend as “proportional” to the provocation. That provocation was an Israeli attack on an Iranian consular facility in Damascus that killed high-ranking officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Israel is justifying its 6-month attack on Gaza that has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians as proportional to its military objective. That is to destroy Hamas. Proportionality is obviously in the eye of the beholder
It shouldn’t be so
This is a serious limitation of the international regime. It sets up norms like proportionality but then leaves compliance to interested belligerents. Some Israelis will no doubt argue that proportionality requires a further response to the Iranian attack with more than 300 flying weapons. Assuming the Israelis are technically better and luckier in their targeting than the Iranians, an Israeli attack with even fewer could kill a lot of Iranians. Then the Iranians would want to kill just as many Israelis. The escalation ladder has no obvious limit.
The international system needs a better way of dealing with proportionality. It should not be left to belligerents to decide. Nor should a decision on proportionality come during court proceedings likely many years after the military action. We need norms, along with a way of convening a discussion of how to apply them to particular circumstances during a crisis.
It’s not only proportionality
Proportionality is today’s issue, but there are many others when it comes to military action and mass violence more generally. The UN has defined aggression, but like proportionality “aggression” may also be in the eye of the beholder. The Russian attack on Ukraine is aggression from President Zelensky’s perspective, but not from President Putin’s.
“Genocide” is likewise well-defined, but application of that definition to particular cases arouses a good deal of debate.
Ditto “responsibility to protect,” a UN General Assembly-endorsed doctrine. It requires states to protect their own civilian populations or risk international intervention that the Security Council authorizes.
The lawyerly approach to such issues is to rely on case law. Decisions in particular cases become precedents for future cases. But that process leaves a great deal of uncertainty and delay. What we need is a much more timely, even anticipatory process.
Proactive would be better
That is not impossible. The legal profession could provide mechanisms that provide guidelines and press belligerents to follow them even during a conflict. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is trying something of this sort with the Gaza conflict. It has responded with unusual speed to the South African complaint against Israel for violation of the genocide convention.
A less formal process might also work. The ICJ of necessity requires elaborate judicial proceedings. The Elders, a group of former world leaders already engaged on conflict issues, could become less reactive and more proactive. The UN’s International Law Commission could likewise take on this responsibility. The legal profession could also constitute an international nongovernmental group to advise on conflict issues before the shooting starts. Proactive would be better.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The wider war has arrived, when will peace?
Iran yesterday retaliated against Israel for its bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which killed high ranking officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The barrage of hundreds of drones and missiles was ineffective, due to Israeli, American, British, and Jordanian air defenses. The Iranians made no secret of what they intended to do and presumably are hoping it will not trigger another round.
Multiple vectors
But it is still reasonable to conclude that the wider Middle East war many have feared has already begun. Israel continues its attack on Gaza. Lebanese Hizbollah and Israel are exchanging shots across the border. Israel is frequently targeting Iranian assets in Syria. Yemen’s Houthis are targeting shipping and warships in the Red Sea. Iraq’s Iranian-sponsored “Popular Mobilization Forces” have been targeting American military bases. Israeli settlers have been chasing Palestinians from their homes on the West Bank.
Of course the pace and lethality of this wider war could heighten. So far, its most deadly axis by far has been Israel/Hamas. Hamas has killed about 1500 Israelis and the Israelis have killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, in retaliation for the mass murder, kidnapping, and mayhem of October 7. Elsewhere the wider war is more than symbolic, but still far less fatal.
Worsening prospects
Once such things start, the natural tendency is towards escalation. Certainly things have gotten worse in the past six months. They are likely to get worse still. The murder of an Israeli teenager on the West Bank last week sparked heightened settler violence against Palestinians there. Hizbollah could do a lot more damage if it unleashes its missiles. So could the Israelis if they decide to push into southern Lebanon. Iran still has lots of drones and missiles it could use in a second attack.
The next round will be Israel’s choice. It could choose to write off yesterday’s attack as ineffective and unworthy of response. Or it could decide to reassert deterrence with a direct attack on Iran or on Iranian assets in the region. I suspect the decision will be based primarily on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s domestic political calculations. He faces growing demands for his resignation. Any pause in the fighting could provide the time to bring him down. He is still hoping for enough of a victory in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran to enable him to remain in power.
That seems unlikely in Gaza. Israel has done significant harm to Hamas there but is still far from the total defeat Netanyahu has set as its war goal. Israel has been hitting Hizbollah in Lebanon without much reaction. That could be a likelier prospect. He may think a devastating blow against Iran would enable him to avoid the inevitable for a while longer. Why anyone in his war cabinet would go along with that is unclear to me, but so far they have generally supported his wartime decisions.
Can diplomacy work?
The still wider and more deadly war in prospect is not in the US interest. Nor do the Europeans want it. Karim Sadjadpour on MSNBC last night pointed out that the Chinese would likewise prefer stability in the Middle East to lower and steady oil prices. The Russians by contrast benefit from de-stabilization and the consequent distraction from the Ukraine war as well as the bump up in oil prices. But even acting together it is unclear that the Americans, Europeans, and Chinese could exert sufficient influence on Israel or Iran to de-escalate.
Both countries have leaders whose political mandates won’t last much longer. Iran’s Supreme Leader is almost 85 years old and ill. Netanyahu is suffering a catastrophic decline in popularity as well as serious corruption charges. Both are claiming not to want to escalate. But neither sees an enticing option other than escalation. Both want victory over the other as a political legacy. The wider war has arrived, but until there is decisively new leadership in both Tehran and Jerusalem peace is unlikely.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
When Jews and Arabs agree and disagree
The horrors of the October 7 attack and the Gaza war are all too present. But it is notable that at least some Arabs and Jews are reacting in similar, if not identical ways. At least I find that true in the US and hope it is true more widely.
Atrocity is atrocity
Most of the Jews and Arabs I come into contact with find both the Hamas attack and the Israeli reaction atrocious. Both are prepared to acknowledge the context for the Hamas attack. It came in the midst of escalating Jewish settler violence against Palestinians on the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as right-wing Jewish challenges to the status quo on the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount. But that in no way justified an indiscriminate attack on civilians inside Israel.
The same is true in the other direction. Most Arabs and Jews understand Israel had to respond. Nor do they think it wrong to seek justice for the Hamas perpetrators and release of the hostages taken to Gaza. But the indiscriminate and disproportionate assault on the civilian population there is still entirely unjustified and counterproductive. States today have obligations when they undertake military action that should not be ignored. Yes, it is true that the United States and its allies during World War II conducted indiscriminate and disproportionate bombing of Germany and Japan, including use of the atomic bomb. But international norms have changed. Even then, protection of civilians was required, not optional. Today it is de rigueur. Atrocity is atrocity.
What could Hamas and Israel have done?
Both Hamas and Israel should have focused their targeting on military targets. That would have meant for Hamas only attacking military bases, not the nearby music festival or kibbutzim, many of which are in fact sympathetic with the Palestinian desire for a state. For Israel it would have meant targeting individuals and groups clearly associated with Hamas and other armed factions in Gaza. That would have precluded the razing of more than 50% of the buildings in the Gaza Strip.
That both warring parties violated the rules of war will have long-term consequences. Israelis will have a lot harder time putting the October 7 attack behind them. Many are seeking revenge, not justice. Some Palestinians will likewise seek revenge. Gaza will be far more difficult to rebuild. Both will be rallying to the more extreme factions of their respective politics, making agreement harder than it might otherwise have been. If you kill people indiscriminately because of their identity, you can expect that identity to strengthen, not weaken.
What is to be done now?
The Americans and others have made no secret of their intensifying effort to reach agreement on a multi-week pause in the fighting to allow exchange of prisoners/hostages. That would certainly be a good thing. But if the exchange is less than complete, the fighting is likely to restart if the same people remain in power.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is determined to continue the war for as long as possible. He knows that a prolonged pause will open the possibility his government will fall and a less radical one take its place. Hamas may likewise fear a prolonged pause will bring its status into question as well. There have already been demonstrations in Gaza against Hamas. A pause will make the consequences of what it brought on starker.
It would make a big difference if Jews and Arabs inside Israel could get together to dump Netanyahu as well as Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas. He is almost as unpopular as Netanyahu. That would open the door to an Israeli government committed to getting the hostages released, Gaza rebuilt, and a common destiny mapped. It would also enable a reformed and more capable PA.
It is clear enough that neither Jews nor Arabs are going to leave Palestine/Israel to the others. The Jews complain when Palestinians talk about “from the river to the sea.” But Palestinians are correct to perceive that the settlers are trying to do it, not just talk about it. Neither will succeed in its maximal ambitions. They are going to have to share the land. There is no reason they can’t do that. It will require wisdom, not slogans.
Why won’t Biden change American policy?
Where Arabs and Jews in America disagree is on US policy. Arabs are sorely disappointed in the President Biden’s unconditional support for Israel and say they won’t vote for him again. Jews like me point out that he has shifted towards support for a fighting pause, exchange of hostages/prisoners, and support for a two-state solution, even though he hasn’t diminished his support for Israel’s right to defend itself or conditioned aid on Israeli behavior.
Much of the Administration and many Jews seem ready to go further, including Tony Blinken. The Secretary of State has said that the Jewish settlements on the West Bank are not consistent with international law. That is a big step in American politics, though the Administration has done nothing to reinforce the statement with actions.
Arab Americans are saying they won’t vote for Biden again. A significant number indicated their displeasure yesterday in the Michigan democratic primary by voting “uncommitted.” That was a smart move. It demonstrated political weight.
But it would be foolish for Arabs and Muslims in Michigan and elsewhere to carry through on the threat and not vote for Biden in November. His likely challenger, Donald Trump, would be far less likely to speak up for Palestinian rights than Biden is. Trump has always wanted increased Jewish support but never got it. Christian evangelicals, however, are vital to the Republican base today. Most of them don’t want to hear anything about the Palestinians. Trump has said little or nothing about Gaza so far. But when he does, Palestinians won’t want to hear it. Voting for Biden may be distasteful to Arab and Muslim Americans, but staying home or voting for Trump should be unthinkable.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Gaza questions are easier than answers
The New York Times has already described how Netanyahu’s plan for postwar Gaza clashes with everyone else’s thinking. Netanyahu wants a full-fledged re-occupation of Gaza, complete with puppet Palestinian government there. He is already clearing a buffer zone inside the Gaza fence and wants to control the Egyptian/Gaza border as well. He imagines that UNRWA can be abolished. Israeli-selected local officials would manage an Israeli-imposed deradicalization process.
What is this really all about?
This is nothing but a formula to continue the Gaza conflict indefinitely. Netanyahu figures that as long as the war lasts he can delay his political downfall. So he is defying President Biden’s pitch for Palestinian Authority revitalization and takeover of Gaza, which would also be a difficult maneuver. Netanyahu has also repeatedly and forcefully ruled out a Palestinian state, which the US supports in principle. Israel and the US are not aligned, diplomats would say, except on Israel’s right of self-defense.
Inside Israel, Netanyahu’s policies are finding a good deal of support, even if he is still wildly unpopular. A lot of right-wing Israelis appear to be looking for revenge, not peace. While Gazans are suffering the horrors of indiscriminate and grossly disproportional attacks, Israel’s soldiers are celebrating the destruction of homes and mosques. Things will only get worse if the Israelis send ground forces into Rafah, where much of the Gaza population has taken refuge from attacks further north.
What is the alternative?
The diplomatic world is struggling to produce an alternative. That would apparently entail a longish pause in most of the fighting to permit a series of hostage exchanges. It is not a bad idea, but there are obvious limits. Hamas will not surrender all of the hostages, because once it does it fears Israel will restart the full-scaled assault on its cadres. But Israel won’t want to surrender all of its prisoners either, so perhaps there is a middle ground with some common interest. Hamas will be finding some of the hostages burdensome and Netanyahu is under political pressure to get some back.
If a pause and additional prisoner exchange does prove feasible, the Americans, Qataris, and Egyptians will want to use the occasion to try for a negotiated end to the war. That too is not a bad idea, but it is hard to see how they could get Netanyahu or Hamas to agree to it. It would either entail Israeli acceptance of a continued presence of Hamas in Gaza or Hamas agreeing to surrender. The former isn’t going to happen with Netanyahu and his rightwing allies in power. The latter isn’t going to happen without a more thorough military defeat than Hamas has suffered so far.
What if Netanyahu were no longer in power?
If Netanyahu and his coalition were to fall from power, other alternatives might emerge. A new Israeli government less committed to Jewish supremacy might conclude that the Netanyahu plan for postwar Gaza is nonsense. It might better understand that the war is creating chaotic conditions in Gaza that will be difficult to manage, never mind repair. Ever more radical groups could emerge and take over from Hamas. Or localized gangs and protection rackets could exploit the situation to establish drug and other smuggling operations.
Israel’s minimal goal in this war should include being at least as secure as it was before October 7. That will require local and international security forces, competent Palestinian governance, international humanitarian relief, Gulf economic assistance, and other inputs to stability that are already difficult to imagine. Continuing the war at this point is predictably counterproductive because it will make them more difficult, not easier.
But ending the war will require the Israelis to summon the political will and courage to get rid of Netanyahu sooner rather than later. That should now be President Biden’s top priority. Getting rid of the prime obstacle to peace is not optional. Continuing to cater to Netanyahu will only bring more grief to Israelis, Palestinians, and ultimately Biden himself.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 11
– Opposition wins in Pakistan.
– Senate resumes voting today on foreign aid package
– WSJ reports Hamas tunnels beneath UNRWA HQ
– Egypt threatens end of Camp David accords
– WaPo has background on Abraham Accords
– Venezuela builds troops on Guyana border
– Trump questions NATO treaty, encourages Putin
—
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What is needed to stop the fighting in Gaza
As Shibley Telhami underlines, the priority right now is to end the fighting in Gaza. But war is an enterprise with political objectives. So we need to consider what the parties involved want and what might bring the fighting to a negotiated end.
Hamas objectives
Hamas’s heinous mass murder and mayhem on October 7 likely had several objectives: to claim leadership of the Palestinian movement, to counter the Israeli occupation both in the West Bank and Gaza, to garner credit for a spectacular act of “resistance,” and to block impending Saudi normalization of relations with Israel. Israeli right-wing infringement on the Haram al Sharif (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem and settler violence against Palestinians on the West Bank provided an attractive opportunity. All Hamas’ main objectives were at least partially achieved on the day.
But the successes came with consequences. The Israelis have responded by destroying much of Gaza and displacing most of its population, with devastating humanitarian consequences. The IDF has killed, wounded, or captured many Hamas fighters. Saudi Arabia has not entirely forsaken normalization and none of the Arab world has done much more than talk smack about the Israelis. Only Iran and its partners (mainly Lebanese Hizbollah, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq) have provided any military support. They would like to use this occasion to drive the US out of the Middle East, regardless of the harm to Palestinians.
Palestinian objectives
The war has predictably and understandably rallied Palestinians to their cause, more in the West Bank than in Gaza. On the use of violence, support for Hamas, and disdain for the Palestinian Authority (especially President Mahmoud Abbas) attitudes have hardened. No doubt the Hamas military leadership is celebrating that as success, but the Palestinians desperately need aid and relief. Small anti-Hamas demonstrations have started up and could grow. Ordinary folks unaffiliated with Hamas will want an end to the war sooner rather than later.
Armed groups are not monolithic. Some in Hamas will be starting to worry about survival. As the Israelis push south, they will kill, wound, and capture more militants as well as civilians. Hamas’ “resistance” ideology can survive that push and even prosper, if need be among organizational successors. But its current leadership and at least some of its cadres will be worrying about their own lives and fortunes. Once physical survival becomes unlikely, some will turn to negotiations. They will hope a pause or end to the war will do what continuing seems unlikely to do. Consolidating Hamas’ position as the leader of the Palestinians and the main negotiating interlocutor with Israel would spell success.
Israeli objectives
Israel’s announced objectives are to destroy Hamas so that nothing like October 7 can ever happen again and to free the hostages Hamas and other more militant groups in Gaza still hold. The war is still far delivering those outcomes.
Prime Minister Netanyahu knows that perfectly well. He welcomes it. A hardened Hamas and divided Palestinians help him to justify continuing the war and hold onto power. Israelis so far have not wanted to replace Netanyahu while the fighting continues. Palestinian division, the growth of West Bank sympathy with Hamas, and a hardened Hamas help him to claim that Israel has no viable negotiating partner.
But Israel is a pluralistic society, so not everyone shares Netanyahu’s objectives. The right-wing of his governing coalition (and perhaps Netanyahu tacitly) is using the war as thinly veiled cover for collective punishment, including by blocking humanitarian assistance, supporting the IDF in loosening its targeting, and encouraging the expulsion of Palestinians from both the West Bank and Gaza. While they complain that Palestinians talk about “from the river to the sea,” violent Jewish settlers in the West Bank are doing it.
Many in the much-diminished liberal Israeli opposition want to prioritize hostage release. Opponents of Netanyahu, they prefer negotiations sooner rather than later, as they recognize the risks to the hostages of delay. They presumably also understand that negotiations now will allow Hamas to survive. Many will think that inevitable even if the war continues.
American objectives
The US government, in particular President Biden, shares the Israeli objectives of destroying Hamas so that it can no longer attack Israel and ensuring release of the hostages. Most of the Congress supports those objectives, with some also supporting Netanyahu’s remaining in power and collective punishment of the Palestinians.
But President Biden also wants to be re-elected. The widening regional conflict threatens an unwanted war with Iran. The Gaza war is weakening his support among younger people countrywide and among Muslims, most consequentially among Arabs in the “swing” state of Michigan. It no longer suffices to claim, accurately, that the US is the biggest funder of humanitarian assistance for Gaza and that Washington is pressing the Israelis to let more in.
That has made at least a pause in the fighting a priority. It also makes renewed talk of a two-state solution important, because that is the one area in which the Americans can agree with the change in Palestinian attitudes. It in addition provides a welcome area of agreement with Arab and Muslim states, in particular Saudi Arabia:
The spoiler is Netanyahu, as he has made clear in his reaction to the Hamas proposals:
He is dead set against a Palestinian state and has said so. He has also rejected President Biden’s suggestion that the issue can be fudged. It is true, as Biden claimed, that there are many varieties of “states,” some with limited sovereignty, but Netanyahu won’t accept any of them.
The elephants aren’t leaving the room
This puts Biden in a tough spot. He needs Netanyahu and his right-wing sidekicks gone. Only then will it be possible to pursue some sort of more permanent ceasefire. A pause would be an important first step, but negotiations won’t end the fighting until its main protagonist has departed from power. Only Israelis can engineer that. None seem willing yet.
RSS - Posts
