Israel-Palestine-Hamas: The Catastrophic Fallout of Fateful Decisions
Decision-making that has caused death and destruction on a gigantic scale
There is justified anger worldwide about the slaughter and destruction in Gaza. My intention, however, is not to rehearse the accusations and counter accusations. It is to examine the decision-making, which means decisions available but not made as well as ones made, that has produced this particular episode of crisis for humanity in Palestine. I will refer to events and actions taken before 7th. October only where they are relevant to understand how and why some, such as member states at the United Nations, have acted as they have done following that date.
First, cards on the table. I am a severe critic of how Israeli governments have conducted relations with the Palestinians since the 1967 war allowed them to occupy territory (and people) beyond that taken when Israel was founded in 1948. I have condemned Israel on many occasions.
Cards on the table again. I am no fan of the Palestinian leadership, which since the start of this problem in the 1920s has been abysmal. There is some truth in the Israeli gibe that they have never missed an opportunity to miss and opportunity. Realpolitik is missing from the Palestinian leaders’ political and diplomatic lexicon. Nor am I one of those who turn a blind eye to the atrocity of 7th. October, or to Hamas adhering to Islamist ideology. On the matter of Hamas’s policy of eliminating Israel, I hold it guilty of telling Palestinians the self-damaging lie that they can ever retake what we know as Israel.
This, however, is not a “plague on both houses”. It seeks to analyse the decision-making, and the consequences, that brought Palestine and Israel to where they are now.
The road to where we are now
The role of Hamas
Hamas is the weaker militarily in the asymmetric struggle and war with Israel (as is the also the case with resistance groups in the West Bank). The weaker power will always use what is termed “terrorism,” which is indiscriminate killing of the opponent’s civilians as well as its military. The purpose of that conduct is to weaken the will of the stronger military power to hold what it has. That is the framework in all such unequal struggles and conflict. In my time I have seen the first President of Kenya dubbed a terrorist before the occupying power, the British, were driven to negotiate with him. Two future Israeli Prime Ministers were indicted for terrorism by the British Mandate authority in 1946. Nelson Mandela too was called a terrorist, and not just by the apartheid regime. Then there was Yasser Arafat, long condemned as a terrorist with whom the then Israeli Prime Minister Rabin shook hands with at Camp David in the USA. We have recent experience in Northern Ireland. Martin McGuiness comes to mind. So many times those who proclaim they will never negotiate with terrorists have to eat that word.
Hamas uses terror tactics. Their rockets fired into Israel have no precise targets, kill and injure civilians. Individual suicide bombers have killed civilians. Each time Hamas decides to act it factors in an Israeli violent response, knowing it will lose active members and that civilians are likely to be killed too. The activists and civilians killed are extolled as martyrs, and one objective of Hamas is fulfilled: maintaining Palestinian anger against Israel. That “anger” objective was spelled out to the then Times foreign editor, Bronwen Maddox, by Hamas, who added that it was essential in its fight to eliminate Israel even if that took a thousand years.
Hamas and Israel have fought a number of mini-wars, sometimes provoked by a Hamas attack and sometimes by an Israeli provocation with actions about or around the Al Aqsa mosque, always a trigger point. Hamas referenced Israeli conduct at the Al Aqsa as one of its reasons for its 7th. October attack.
Hamas is not an amateur organisation. It has a well- designed leadership structure, with disciplined highly skilled personnel as its construction of the tunnel network demonstrates, as does its survival as a fighting force after six months of ferocious assault. . Most important in the present context is that Hamas, from its long experience of dealing with Israel knew its enemy when it planned and then executed 7th. October. Whether it anticipated the ferocity of Israel’s response, with its destruction, and deaths, is a question the Gaza Palestinians may ask one day.
The Hamas attack took terror to a new level. Rapes, desecration of a rape victim’s corpse, killing of babies, of young people, hostages old and young, and exultation over what the war criminals were doing are all true and recorded, often by Hamas operatives themselves. Why then, with that barbarity has Hamas not been subjected to sustained interrogation, and universal condemnation? A question put time and again by the Israeli ambassador to the UN general assembly and Security Council; and by pro-Israeli journalists in the UK and USA.
Part of the reason is that those who are anti-Israel do not want to admit what Hamas did, as they wish to cast only one villain in this matter – Israel. Soon after 7th. October I received a video from an Arab friend in Bahrain (one of a number), in which an articulate Arab woman claimed there is no proof of Hamas atrocities, while a Professor in Ramallah in the West Bank, when asked if they happened, said only “possibly.” Al Jazeera described Hamas’s attack as “an incursion,” and denied any “widespread and systematic” sexual assault took place.” On UK television, I watched a Hamas spokesman tell a British interviewer that it didn’t kill civilians, only settlers. The interviewer didn’t understand that for Hamas every Israeli man, woman and child, is a settler.
Not only in the Arab states, but here in the UK we have been told “Don’t believe Israel’s lies” That position allows those who want to condemn Israeli action in Gaza to glide past the Hamas atrocities. So, in the public sphere Hamas are off the hook, because as one letter writer put it in The Herald (6th April ) after proclaiming Israel a liar: “Even if these allegation are true, it doesn’t justify Israel wiping out an entire people.”
Gross errors of judgment by Israeli governments has allowed Hamas to evade condemnation
Israel. That question of how Hamas has evaded serious questions about its conduct, may seem to have a short-term answer in the revulsion felt worldwide at the destruction and deaths in Gaza. Almost 1,200 Israelis were killed and hundreds taken hostage in one day, while the battering of Gaza has been a sustained six month nightmare of Palestinian deaths, counting in the thousands. But there is a longer-term reason why so many people and states have concentrated on Israeli conduct alone. Using “governments” instead of “government” in the heading above, is not a typo.
Before I proceed, I should explain the difference between a UN Security Council resolution under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, and one under Chapter VII, because it explains why all Israeli governments have developed a sense of immunity to breaking international law, as they have done since 1967, without fear of penalties. I worked in the Arab world for many years, and heard time again accusations of Western hypocrisy, with my interlocutors citing Iraq being punished for non –compliance with UNSC resolutions, while Israel was never touched.
Take for example UNSC 2334 in 2016, which on the matter of settlements in the West Bank condemned Israel’s “flagrant violation” of international law, and called for it to stop. It passed 14-0, with the United States abstaining. The USA could abstain because as the resolution came within Chapter VI, Israel could ignore it and continue building. Some legal scholars argue that a Chapter VI resolution is mandatory, others use the term legally-binding, but in reality it can be ignored with no cost.
Had 2334 been tabled under Chapter VII, as were those calling for Iraq to quit Kuwait, the USA would have used its veto, because Israeli non-compliance would have carried penalties, probably sanctions binding on all UN states to implement them. But even resolutions under Chapter VI can invite the USA veto, if they are regarded as too critical. Up until 1972 the USA used its veto only once. After that it has used its veto to protect Israel 43 or 45 times (there is a difference between research institutes on the number).
UNSC Meeting on 8th. October: A game changer
This American protection of Israel has served it well until now. The international community has been rendered impotent, as Israel has continued its 15 year semi-siege of Gaza with control of what goes in and out, and who can go in and out; and continue often violent oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, ruling them through military courts and administrative detention. But that sense of immunity has finally come with a price. Israel’s case against Hamas, and therefore its justification for the onslaught on Gaza that followed, has been met with deaf ears by the international community in the form of its governments, and its peoples.
This was manifest on the 8th October 2023 when the UN Security Council met about the Hamas attack, but behind closed doors. No one knows for sure what was said by its 15 members, but it was obvious from the comments made afterwards by the US official and others, that there was no agreement on the terms of a draft resolution to condemn Hamas. That would be astonishing in any other setting. A UN member state is the object of a terror attack of deliberate atrocity on civilians, yet the highest body in world affairs cannot reach agreement on condemnation. It looked like pay-back time for Israel who, for decades, flicked off with contempt all UN strictures aimed at it.
The Failure to take a breath before declaring for war
In a letter to the Herald on 20th. October I wrote: “Rage has now, understandably, possessed Israelis, Palestinians, demonstrators in the Arab states, in Europe, the UK and elsewhere….Rage may be understandable in individuals, but it should not dictate policy at the highest levels of government.”
There were people in Israel who knew rage and revenge should not dictate government policy. Efraim Halevy, former director of Mossad, claiming a number of Israelis agree with him ( by which he means those in the intelligence services) advised the government to take a breath and not to rush into a ground war that could “add agony to agony.”
Taking that breath, pausing action, would have left the world spotlight to focus solely on what Hamas had done, in all its horror. Time taken for a breath could have involved discussions with the key Arab states who have diplomatic relations with Israel – Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, UAE – and Saudi Arabia. Israel could have put them on the spot to condemn the Hamas atrocities, and so neutralise them as critics of its decisions taken later. Discussions might have provided Israel with knowledge of what those states would regard as an acceptable or unacceptable Israeli response. Why go to great lengths over many years to foster relations with Arab states, and not consult and involve them in a matter of crucial importance on what is seen by them, and is, an Arab issue?
This Netanyahu government, however, is not blessed with the broadest of minds. Paul Nuki, a senior British journalist with years of experience in the Middle East says: “The defence establishment in Israel may be tough and disciplined but it is by no means the most reactionary of the country’s institutions. It is the defence establishment that has, over many years, tried to keep the idea of a long-term peace alive, and many within it are now looking to the country’s politicians to start pulling their weight in the current crisis. But are Israel’s politicians up to the job? It is widely acknowledged that several cabinet ministers are no more than racist thugs and the interior minister has a long police charge sheet against his name” (emphasis added). These he said are Israel’s “Messianic Right.” Put another way, they are an eye for an eye people.
The Israeli government went all out for revenge, with full scale war on Gaza. On 9th October the Defence Minister Yoav Gallant had “removed every restriction” on the IDF. On 12th October President Herzog told the foreign media that in Gaza “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware not involved. It’s absolutely untrue….and we will fight until we break their backbone.” In Gaza over one million are children. Did he include them in his promise?
But it was Netanyahu who set the destructive war aims. On 28th October, he sent a letter to Israeli soldiers as they prepared to invade. In it he invoked the Biblical story of Amalek where the ancient Israelis were instructed to “Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, and camels and asses.” Hamas’s atrocities were designed to provoke Israel’s government into doing what it should not do, and succeeded.
The Consequences
Now, to the consequences of decision-making by Israel and Hamas. Israel, because it is a state, a democracy with a vibrant free press, is the most open to assessment. There will in Israel, in due course, be a thorough examination of how 7th. October happened, and the response, all played out in public. Hamas by comparison is a closed door. It is a non-state actor and self-styled resistance organisation operating in Gaza as a government, where there has been no test of public opinion for years on its claim to legitimacy (the 2009 election has never taken place). No doubt Hamas will examine events, but that will be done in private. It is unlikely to allow open Gazan public participation in its deliberations.
The consequences for Israel: Damage to US relations
Israel, is a small state in a unique situation. A number of other states do not recognise it, among whom are ones openly hostile to its very existence, willing to fund groups on its borders who employ terror tactics for the purposes of destabilisation and ultimately elimination.
Since its foundation Israel, more than any other state, has needed allies. It has support in Europe, and while not marginal they do not compare in importance with the United States, a source of material aid ($3bn for arms each year) and its protector at the United Nations. Hitherto Israel could rely upon solid support in the US Congress for any position it adopted, or action taken.
That US guarantee remains, but is no longer rock solid. Congress, which in the past was locked up in unconditional approval, is now hearing in its chambers strong criticism backed by a growing anti-Israel movement among young voters. American Muslims have caught this wind of change, and are now more assertive in the public sphere than ever before, and are having an effect. That decision to do an Amalek in Gaza is proving to have damaging costs that are likely to be long term in Israel-US relations.
Where now for the Abraham Accords?
There is another cost: Israel has thrown away the prize of solidifying the Abraham Accords with recognition and diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, which was within reach. The Amalek policy has driven friendly Arab Gulf states to act at the UN as a group opposed to Israel on Gaza.
This was Netanyahu speaking to the UN General Assembly, just two weeks before 7th. October:
“So when the Palestinians see that most of the Arab world has reconciled itself to the Jewish state, they too will be more likely to abandon the fantasy of destroying Israel and finally embrace a path of genuine peace with it.
Now for years my approach to peace was rejected by the so-called “experts.” Well they were wrong. Under their approach we didn’t forge a single peace treaty for a quarter of a century.
Yes in 2020, under the approach that I advocated, we tried something different – and in no time we achieved an amazing breakthrough.
We achieved four peace treaties working with the United States. Israel forged four peace treaties with four Arab countries –the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco
There is no question the Abraham Accords heralded the dawn of a new age of peace. But I believe that we are on the cusp of an even more dramatic breakthrough – an historic peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Such a peace will go a long way to ending the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It will encourage other Arab states to normalise their relations with Israel. It will enhance the prospects of peace with the Palestinians.
It will encourage a broader reconciliation between Judaism and Islam, between Jerusalem and Mecca, between the descendants of Isaac and the descendants of Ishmael. All these are tremendous blessings”.
Leaving aside Sudan with its present chaos, all of those key Arab states, along with Egypt and Jordan which also have diplomatic relations with Israel, are hostile to the Hamas Islamist ideology, and bringing Saudi Arabia into that diplomatic net would have been a master stroke. Some who know the region well, believe that one reason for the Hamas attack was to scupper that broad reconciliation and prevent Saudi joining in. If true, it worked.
Taking a breath, taking time to consult its new Arab partners before deciding on a proportionate response would have preserved that potential breakthrough. Israel has demonstrated time and time again its ability to be precise in application of lethal force. The Amalek policy choice was the last one it should have considered. For all the killing and destruction it has wrought in Gaza, it is failing in the stated war aims of eliminating Hamas and getting the hostages back; and it has blown up the strategic advantage offered by the Abraham Accords.
If Hamas isn’t eliminated, it has “won”
Other than in the eyes of those who support Israel (a minority in both state and people terms) it has avoided responsibility for provoking a war that has killed over 33,000, wounded over 76,000, and saw unprecedented destruction in Gaza where, it seems to have gone unnoticed, it has built tunnels but not shelters to protect people from bombardment. It can, as a long-term benefit in recruitment, count on the Israeli killings having radicalised another generation of Palestinians (and Islamists elsewhere), and it has won the propaganda war. Moreover, it has dealt a blow to the Israeli deal with Saudi Arabia, and given the amount of public anger in each Arab state which recognises Israel, it will take a long time for them to re-establish normal relations. Far from being eliminated, it has grown in the West Bank is at the cease fire and hostage negotiating table. Hamas could not wish for a better enemy than the present Israeli government has proved to be.
Postscript
War develops its own dynamic and often eludes the control of those who engage in its early stages. The Middle East could now explode in directions no one planned or wants. The number of “players” now directly and indirectly involved – state and non-state actors – are many and with varied and different interests. No single power can impose its will, least of all the Un Security Council. But influence is a different matter. It is not in the interests of world political and economic powers with stakes in the Middle East to have a full-scale war there, and we can be sure that China, India and the United States are working on both Iran and Israel to prevent escalation. It was noticeable that Iran declared its drone and missile attack on Israel is a one-off, and that Israel, instead of promising immediate death and destruction retaliation, has taken a breath by saying it will respond to Iran in its own good time. Fingers crossed. There has been enough bad decision-making.