The Israeli invasion of Gaza has spread to Lebanon and Syria without clear justification. This could escalate into a bigger regional war

The Middle East has once again become the epicenter of global attention due to the ongoing war between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah. What began as a Hamas “surprise attack” on October 7, 2023, has transformed into a protracted war with far-reaching geopolitical consequences.

As the war enters its second year, the death toll continues to rise; nearly 42,010 people died, as well as 16,900 children and 11,500 women, or nearly 70% of the total deaths, according to the health authorities’ report. The war not only devastated Gaza, but also threatened to engulf the entire region – including Lebanon, Iran and Syria – giving rise to the “possibility” of a full-scale war.

The war between Israel and Hamas has brought to the surface deep-rooted problems and critical questions about the reasons and motivations, as it has now become a considerable “war.” The reasons behind Israel’s invasion of Gaza are numerous, but not limited to lack of accountability, far-right Israeli leadership and internal political dynamics. For some, Israel’s stated goal of “destroying Hamas” was the justification for a military invasion of Gaza, while others argue that it is just a “pretext.” “.

Followed by Israeli military airstrikes and ground invasions, Gaza has been hit by widespread destruction and displacement over the past year. In recent months, the invasion has expanded into Lebanon and Syria, involving more state and non-state actors such as Hezbollah.

“Destroy Hamas and Hezbollah”: a maximalist and vague war objective

Israel’s stated goal during the military invasion of Gaza to “destroy Hamas” has been one of the pillars of its “justification” for what is now an ongoing bloodbath. It is crucial to understand what it means to destroy Hamas, which has been the de facto government of Gaza since it took control in 2007, controlling essential elements like social services, the management of schools and the daily lives of people. more than 2 million people. people. It has “very deep roots” in Gaza, says Dan Byman, a professor at Georgetown.

By November 2023, Israel would have killed or captured a third of Hamas’s fighting forces and destroyed between a fifth and a quarter of its tunnel network. However, as Byman points out, “none of them succeeded in eliminating Hamas.” Furthermore, the term “destroy Hamas” itself is so vague that it allows for a constant expansion of military operations and invasion of the lands of Gaza and Lebanon, ignoring international law.

For Israel, this constitutes an explanation for a more intense or more prolonged war without clear measures of “success.” This lack of clarity has given rise to what is quickly becoming a war, but with no end in sight.

The pursuit of this maximalist goal has created a serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The vague nature of the goal of “destroying Hamas and Hezbollah” obscures what victory might look like and when the illegal invasion might end.

Paradoxically, the relentless military campaign to eliminate Hamas could consolidate its political authority among the Palestinians. Gaza and the West Bank have felt increased support for Hamas due to the suffering felt throughout Gaza.

Support for Hamas in Palestine stands at 40 percent, six points higher than in the previous survey three months ago, according to a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy Research and Survey (PCPSR). ) between May 26 and June 1.

However, the maximalist element of this war goal ignores the context and reasons why Hamas is popular with some Palestinians. Israel’s top wartime cabinet minister, Gadi Eisenkot, said in January 2024 that anyone who says Hamas will be completely defeated “is not telling the truth.”

Israeli leadership and internal political dynamics

At the heart of the war is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose tendency to resolve crises in the direction of war has been catalyzed not only by his personal political concerns, but has also been influenced in particular by his hawkish attitude on security issues.

Before the October 7 attack, Netanyahu – who had previously struggled with domestic difficulties, including accusations of corruption and a series of protests against judicial reform – was in a precarious political situation. The Hamas attack exposed significant security disappointments under his leadership, leading to vilification and calls for his resignation.

However, Natan Sachs of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Middle East Policy explained: “Responsible leadership would prevent anger and the need for future prevention from going in different directions.” the future could be.”

Instead, Netanyahu was accused of stoking public anger and painting an impossible picture of what can be achieved through military power alone. This approach has made it difficult to think about a less aggressive response or even engage in meaningful peace negotiations.

Facing pressure, Netanyahu took a hard line and declared that there must be total victory over Hamas. He has focused on presenting himself as a strong, dominant leader at a time of national crisis to shore up his political support and avoid drawing attention to past failures.

In this regard, figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have pushed for harsh measures against the Palestinians and against any concessions in the peace negotiations. Nevertheless, opposition parties, while initially supportive of the war effort, have been increasingly critical of Netanyahu’s handling of the war. This myopia has neglected long-term strategic sagacity.

“Moral hazard” and “Strategic ambiguity”

Traditionally applied in economics and other areas of international relations, the notion of moral hazard presents a poignant and troubling application. This is an example of moral hazard, in which Israel, assured of the unwavering support of the United States, would feel encouraged to take stricter measures than it otherwise would to avoid facing the consequences of these actions.

This dynamic is enormously assuaged by the fact that, since its founding, the United States has been committed to maintaining Israel’s security, which has been repeatedly described as “ironclad.”

In the current war in particular, this dynamic has been very marked. The United States repeatedly called on Israel to show restraint in Gaza, but Israel went ahead and carried out what became an unprecedented invasion that resulted in nothing but destruction and civilian deaths.

For example, President Biden has made it clear publicly that Israel must carry out surgical strikes and avoid a large ground invasion of northern Gaza and southern Lebanon. Yet Israel carried out a large-scale ground invasion that appears to have had no repercussions from the United States. When Biden said Netanyahu had crossed a “red line” by talking about an invasion of Rafah, Israel followed the next day by planning to carry out such an invasion.

Moral hazard is further complicated by the United States’ policy of strategic ambiguity in the region. On the one hand, the United States reiterates its “unwavering” commitment to Israel’s security and right to self-defense; on the other, he also expressed concern about civilian casualties and advocated a two-state solution. The ambiguity of the American message is a way to continue to demonstrate flexibility in its response, but the same ambiguity can make it unclear to Israel and other regional actors what the limits of American support really are, or tolerance to escalation. .

No pressure for strong accountability

The war between Israel and Hamas has exposed a dangerous lack of accountability of Israeli authority on the international stage as the risks of the conflict escalating into a more serious regional war increase. Despite a wave of calls for de-escalation to protect civilian lives, the international community has done little to exert significant pressure to end the war.

However, faced with the growing number of civilians, major world powers and international organizations have taken few concrete steps to enforce the laws of war. Israel does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and in 2021 the Court announced that it was investigating alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories.

On May 20, ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for five accused of atrocities related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Those mentioned are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas leader in Gaza Yahya Sinwar.

Given the predictable slowness of ICC proceedings, any accountability through the mechanism will likely come years after the current conflict.

In a word, Israel’s actions, made possible by the unwavering support of the United States, have created a situation of moral hazard. This allowed Israel to continue its military escalation, perhaps paving the way for a broader regional war.

The chosen war path indicates a failure of political leadership and strategic thinking. This path of war is certainly the wrong path, and it must be urgently stopped as the humanitarian toll rises.

Sketch: SCT

“>

Sketch: SCT