The Israel-Hamas conflict will have far-reaching geopolitical consequences, extending well beyond the confines of the Middle East. When it comes to the military conflict in the Middle East, Capitol Hill in Washington DC is seen as Jewish-occupied territory while Israel is considered one of the states of the USA. Displaying unwavering support for Israel, President Biden has stepped in by deploying two carrier-led combat fleets to the Eastern Mediterranean, serving as a deterrent to Hezbollah and Iran. The recent war in Gaza has elicited a range of perspectives and attitudes, which often differ and even contradict one another. Some view the conflict as a calculated manoeuvre orchestrated by Hamas, with the sole aim of disrupting the ongoing peace process between Israel and the Arab monarchies. Conversely, another group maintains that Israel itself has deliberately initiated the confrontation to undermine the current pursuit of a well-established two-state resolution.
The recent Hamas attack is commonly seen by numerous experts as evidence of Israel’s alleged disregard for the Palestinian issue, especially while actively seeking peace agreements with countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. The significant weight lies in understanding the underlying factors that drive individuals to take desperate measures despite the distressing nature of the attack itself. As Hamas has become ingrained within Palestinian society over time, regardless of its classification as a terrorist group by the US, UK, and EU, it cannot be fully eradicated and should consequently play a role in future peace negotiations.
As Hamas has become ingrained within Palestinian society over time, it cannot be fully eradicated and should consequently play a role in future peace negotiations.
Conversely, Israelis embrace a contrasting outlook. They highlight their withdrawal of forces and settlers from Gaza in 2005, expecting Palestinians to develop infrastructure such as factories, farms, and hotels. Nevertheless, Hamas directed most of its resources towards constructing rockets and underground tunnels, as well as training numerous militants to perpetrate acts of violence, thereby leading to widespread impoverishment among the populace. The perception that Israel should always retain control over neighbouring territories is reinforced by this incident, as it evokes concerns about the potential for future militant takeover and attack similar to the one observed on October 7th. Israelis look to the post-World War II examples of Japan and Germany, where existing authorities were dismantled entirely, and new entities were established with substantial international aid packages. However, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences of inflicting total devastation upon Gaza, as this could foster long-term animosity among an entire generation of young individuals toward the Jewish state. Such a scenario risks further radicalisation and hostility, prolonging the already complex and challenging pursuit of a peaceful resolution.
In Israel, there is a growing sentiment that it is time to move away from the unsuccessful two-state paradigm and explore alternative approaches. To expedite its military operations and reduce the casualties, Israel has actively supported the idea of temporarily moving Gazans to Egypt or other Arab countries. These proposals have been met with refusals from Egypt and other Arab nations, as they harbour concerns based on historical events where Palestinians were displaced from their homes and not allowed to return. While Israel disputes these claims, it is pursuing plans to establish a buffer zone within Gaza to ensure that militants are kept at a distance from its communities.
The aftermath in Gaza stands as one of the numerous issues to be tackled in the Middle East Peace Process. Predicting the endgame for this ongoing conflict is extremely challenging as numerous variables are at play, making it difficult to determine when the war will end. Additionally, the individuals responsible for making decisions at critical junctures remain unsure. Much of Gaza City lies in ruins, and its inhabitants, largely descendants of refugees, have long endured a lack of productive employment opportunities. While the reputation of Gaza may be dire, it is important to note that according to the World Bank, the region boasts nearly universal literacy rates, surpassing those of neighbouring Egypt. Moreover, there has been an improvement in infant mortality rates and life expectancy figures. However, the current conflict threatens to have a devastating impact, with over two-thirds of Gazans now displaced. The potential outcome may resemble the dire situation seen in Syria, with massive internal refugee tent camps amidst widespread destruction. The extent to which Hamas is weakened will also be a determining factor in shaping the future of Gaza.
Hamas, an entity that cannot be entirely eradicated, ought to be integrated into the negotiations about the establishment of a prospective Palestinian state. This inclusion is indispensable as Hamas is poised to play a definitive role in shaping the post-conflict landscape. The Arab World for Research and Development, a reputable organisation located in Ramallah, has recently conducted research that supports the claim that Palestinians perceive the attack on 7 October as a significant triumph of Hamas. The aforementioned study reveals a drastic decline in support for a two-state solution, juxtaposed with a notable surge in the belief in the realisation of a Palestinian state encompassing the expanse from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
“The metaphor for Palestine is stronger than the Palestine of reality”. – Mahmoud Darwish
The writer is a retired Pakistan Army Officer. He can be reached at nawazish30@hotmail.com