Israeli Prime Minister is clearly provoking Hezbollah into a broader regional war. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas on Israel, there has been a persistent low-level conflict at the Israeli-Lebanese border. But the Israelis have escalated the conflict throught the introduction of the booby-trapped pagers and walkie-talkies and the direct aerial attack on Beirut. These actions comes on top of the Israeli attacks against Hezbollah and Hamas leaders in Syria and Iran. In short, Israel has already committed acts of war against three soveriegn states: Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.
These attacks have been quite successful in diminishing the command structure of both Hamas and Hezbollah. But the apparent Israeli assumption that by eradicating the leadership of these organizations, it is reducing the tactical threats of these organizations to Israeli security is profoundly mistaken. Unquestionably, these organizations have been set back and will need to establish new leadership and new communication strategies. But the attacks serve only to amplify the sense of grievance that underlies the conflict. In particular, Hezbollah will have to respond in some effective way or it runs the risk of becoming totally irrelevant. Writing for the Long War Journal, Joe Truzman outlines the dynamic:
“How and when will Hezbollah respond against Israel is the question on the minds of Israeli military leaders, analysts, and many people living in the region. Retaliation will surely come, but it won’t be a knee-jerk reaction. Hezbollah has demonstrated over the past 11 months that despite initiating a conflict with Israel under the guise of assisting Palestinian civilians in Gaza, it prefers to keep the fighting limited to southern Lebanon. However, after months of rocket fire against Israel and the resounding response by the IDF in the last days, the era of limited conflict may be reaching its conclusion in the days ahead.”
Hezbollah and Iran have been remarkably restrained thus far in their responses to the Israeli attacks, most likely because they have yet to figure out an effective response. The both know that the US and its allies in the region have the capability to shoot down many missiles before they hit their targets. The only possible way for Hezbollah and Iran to actually damage the Israeli homeland is through a massive attack that would deplete their arsenals and would only be effective against population centers in Israel. Such an attack, however, would clearly trigger off a massive response by Israel and the US. That outcome would be disastrous, but it might be a better outcome than humiliation and irrelevance.
The real question is why Israel is pushing its adversaries into such a catastrophic position. The question takes on special urgency since we have no idea what the Netanyahu government intends to do with the Gaza Strip. The war there is essentially over: Hamas is probably incapable of launching any attacks on the Israeli homeland any time soon: “As military operations continue in Gaza and the West Bank, the overall posture of the Israeli military appears to have shifted north. Israel has shifted its 98th Division, which contains the Commando and Paratroop Brigade, to the north. This is a key division that played a major role in Gaza fighting between November 2023 and July 2024. It is joining a number of IDF divisions already deployed there.”
But a larger war would take the eyes of the world off of Gaza and that objective may be the purpose of the escalation–to provide cover for the eventual takeover of the Gaza Strip by Israel. The Middle East Eye suggests that this objective is indeed real: “The threat of war, however, will have implications far beyond Lebanon, as it will turn the world’s attention away from Gaza and allow Israel to complete its mass killing and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.” NBC News reports:
“Warnings from the White House — and the United Nations’ top court — appear to have done little to stop some of Israel’s right-wing ministers from touting a vision that the country’s own prime minister has dismissed: rebuilding Israeli settlements in Gaza after the war.
“Several ministers within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s right-wing government were among thousands of people who flocked to a conference in Jerusalem on Sunday night calling for Israelis’ ‘resettlement’ of Gaza, with far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich delivering keynote speeches.
“The conference, dubbed ‘Settlement Brings Security,’ was led in part by the right-wing Nachala organization, a group advocating for the expansion of Jewish settlements, which are considered illegal by international and humanitarian bodies. The event called for Israel to rebuild settlements in both Gaza and northern parts of the occupied West Bank.”
That objective seems fanciful, given the massive destruction in Gaza. But it is precisely because the Israelis have destroyed the infrastructure of the Gaza that resettlement becomes possible. No states, including Israeli allies, will contribute to the reconstruction of the Gaza as long as it remains under Israeli control And the Israelis will not contribute to the reconstruction of Gaza unless it is accompanied by resettlement. The end result is that the default option for the battered Gaza Strip is Israeli control.
The Israelis have decided to start a fire in order to put out another fire. They would be well-advised to read The Possessed by Dostoyevky. In that novel, a revolutionary group starts a fire in a town and the immediate response of the townspeople is to put out the fire. But as a governmental official watches those efforts, he reveals the underlying truth to resistance movements:
‘What is he doing there?’
‘He is putting out the fire, your Excellency.’
‘Not likely. The fire is in the minds of men and not on the roofs of houses.’
Israel bombed a school being used as a shelter for displaced Palestinians in Gaza today, killing as many as 100 civilians according to the Gaza Healthy Ministry. The Israelis claimed that the school was being used by Hamas as a command center and asserted that 20 terrorists were killed in the strike and disputed the number of civilians killed. The Israelis have destroyed most of the schools in Gaza: “The U.N. previously said that as of July 6, 477 out of 564 schools in Gaza had been directly hit or damaged in the war, adding that Israel has a duty under international law to provide safe shelter for the displaced.” Moreover, the Israelis claimed to have used precision weapons which may have included weapons supplied by the US: “Unverified reporting indicated that at least one of the missiles dropped on the al-Tabin school overnight may have been a U.S.-made MK-84 bomb weighing 2,000 pounds.”
“The White House is ‘deeply concerned’ about reports of civilian deaths in Gaza related to Israel striking a school in Gaza City that killed at least 80 people, saying the strike “underscores the urgency of a ceasefire.”
“’We are deeply concerned about reports of civilian casualties in Gaza following a strike by the Israel Defense Forces on a compound that included a school,’ NSC spokesperson Sean Savett wrote in a statement to The Hill. ‘We are in touch with our Israeli counterparts, who have said they targeted senior Hamas officials, and we are asking for further details.’
“’This underscores the urgency of a ceasefire and hostage deal, which we continue to work tirelessly to achieve,’ Savett added.”
The US position is indefensible. On the same day that the attack occurred, the US sent $3.5 billion in military assistance to Israel without any assurances that “precision” bombs would be used with more precision (the idea that a 2000-lb bomb can be “precise” in a densely populated area is malicious doublespeak). Israel’s procedures which permit the killing of civilians as long as there are Hamas militants in the general area is completely at odds with the laws of war. There have been 40,000 deaths in Gaza since the war started last October. The US has a law (the Leahy Law) which prohibits “the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.” The US has sent about $310 billion in military aid to Israel since its sounding–by far the most supported country in the world despite the fact that its per capita GDP ranks 14th in the world.
The US-led alliance that thwarted Iran’s mille attack last April undoubtedly contributed to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s sense of immunity to attacks in the future, and the subsequent killing of Hamas leader, Haniyeh in Tehran. Because of the US missile shield, the Prime Minister has pursued policies aptly described as rogue. He appears to ignore international condemnation and any pressures from the US to move toward a cease-fire. Indeed, the Prime Minister appears willing to risk a war with Iran, believing that the US would defend Israel. The US should announce an arms embargo on Israel until a cease-fire is reached and to withold future military assistance to Israel until an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people is reached on the future of the Occupied Territories.
I need to correct information I posted yesterday. The news reports yesterday were that Hamas leader Haniyeh was killed in Tehran by a guided missile. Apparently, that information was incorrect. The New York Times is reporting that the bomb that killed Haniyeh had been planted in the apartment in which he was staying months before. According to the Times:
“Ismail Haniyeh, a top leader of Hamas, was assassinated on Wednesday by an explosive device covertly smuggled into the Tehran guesthouse where he was staying, according to seven Middle Eastern officials, including two Iranians, and an American official.
“The bomb had been hidden approximately two months ago in the guesthouse, according to five of the Middle Eastern officials. The guesthouse is run and protected by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and is part of a large compound, known as Neshat, in an upscale neighborhood of northern Tehran.
“Mr. Haniyeh was in Iran’s capital for the presidential inauguration. The bomb was detonated remotely, the five officials said, once it was confirmed that he was inside his room at the guesthouse. The blast also killed a bodyguard.”
The news (if accurate) would be a debilitating blow to the Revolutionary Guard which had been entruted with security for the apartment complex. The news indicates that there are elements within the Guard cooperating with the Israelis. The conclusion is that the Guard is incompetent and untrustworthy. That conclusion may temper the Iranian response to the assassination. We will find out.
The chances of a wider regional war in the Middle East have increased over the last few days. Up until recently, the main military activity has been the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, while there have been sporadic military operations between the Israelis and Houthi and Hezbollah forces. Israel has escalated its attacks in Lebanon, attacking a site in Beirut to target a Hezbollah operative, and today it targeted a Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh , in Teheran, Iran. According to the Associated Press:
“Iranian U.N. Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani in a letter on Wednesday blamed both strikes on Israel. He and said they ‘suggest an intention to escalate conflict and expand the war through the entire region.’ He called on the international community for ‘decisive action to address these violations and hold the perpetrators accountable.’”
Israel has taken responsibility for the strike in Beirut, saying it killed a top Hezbollah commander. But Israel has been silent about the strike that killed Haniyeh, though it had vowed to kill him and other Hamas leaders over the group’s Oct. 7 attack that sparked the war in Gaza.
Israel has not claimed responsibility for the assassination of Haniyeh, but has in the case of senior Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukur in Lebanon. Israel, however, has a long list of targeted assassinations in the region. It is difficult to overstate the significance of the more recent assassinations. To be clear, bombing another country is always regarded as an act of war, and Israel has now bombed targets in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Israel believes that its actions are simply a logical extension of its war against Hamas, but that narrow perspective is not justified: no state can ignore the consequences of such attacks on its sovereignty.
The attacks confirm my suspicions that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to escalate the conflict. First, Haniyeh was killed while he was attending the inauguration of the new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian. Pezeshkian is considered a moderate, breaking away from the hardline views of his two predecessors. But the attack will only strengthen the hands of the hardliners in Iran, particularly since the attack was an embarassment to the Iranian defense forces–the attack was done by a precision-guided missile against a target in the capital city of Tehran. Moreover, Haniyeh was a guest in Tehran and the protection of guests is a sacred obligation in Islam.
Second, Haniyeh was a principal negotiator in the current negotiations for a cease-fire in Gaza. There is probably no greater way to sabotage negotiations than to actually kill one of the interlocutors. Moreover, Israel has recently attached more preconditions to a ceasefire that was described by an Israeli official in these terms in an article in Axios: “Netanyahu wants a deal that is impossible to get. At the moment he isn’t willing to move and therefore we might be headed for a crisis in the negotiations rather than a deal”.
There is little question but that Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, will respond to the Israeli attacks. The last time Israel provoked Iran back in April by killing senior Hezbollah officials in Damascus, the Iranians chose a relatively calibrated response. According to The Economist:
“Iran has struck Israel directly once before: it launched more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel in April, retaliation for an Israeli strike that killed several high-ranking officers at Iran’s embassy compound in Damascus. Israel hit back with a pinpoint strike on an Iranian anti-aircraft radar, and the round was over.
“This time, Iran will have to decide whether it can risk a bigger conflagration. It is going through a sensitive political moment. Mr Haniyeh was killed hours after he attended the inauguration of Masoud Pezeshkian, the new Iranian president, who was elected after his predecessor was killed in a helicopter crash in May. This was probably not how he envisioned his first day on the job.”
The calibrated Iranian response was also blunted by a coalition of forces in the region to shoot down most of the missiles fired from Iran. The Center for Strategic and International Studies assessed the missile defense effort:
“This episode represents an outstanding success story for air and missile defense. Despite the over 300 ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise missiles launched, there appears to have been minimal damage to Israeli infrastructure and military assets, and the attack resulted in only one Israeli casualty.
It was also a joint effort. The coalition was led by the United States and featured the United Kingdom, France, and Jordan, in addition to Israel. Coordination took place at the Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which helped to prevent any friendly fire incidents. Although Saudi Arabia has denied direct involvement, the kingdom at least allowed U.S. aircraft stationed in the country to engage Iranian air threats. Israel’s Arab neighbors also may have contributed intelligence and sensor assets to detect and track Iranian air threats, although the extent of this cooperation remains unclear. U.S. policymakers have long advocated for an integrated missile defense in the region, and this joint operation helps illustrate why.”
The Iranian government thus has to decide what an “appropriate” response should be, but it needs to take into account the lessons of the earlier April attack and try to overwhelm the missile defense capabilities of Israel and the US-led coalition. I do not have the technical expertise to speculate on what that number of missiles might be, and I suspect that the US will try to shoot down as many of those missiles as it can which is also a number I do not know.
But there is a more important insight to gain from the April attack. The US and the coalition of allies offering missile defenses are providing a shield which insulates Israel from any real consequences to its actions. That course if action is unwise since it allows the Netanyahu government to take actions which have negatively affected the US, Israel, and the Palestinian people.
Yesterday, the Israeli Knesset declared that the creation of a Palestinian states would “pose an existential danger to the State of Israel.” The vote was 68 to 9 out of a possible 120 votes, and the fact that 43 members did not votes is intriguing, and perhaps, telling. The vote was held just as Prime Minister Netanyahu is scheduled to deliver an address to the US Congress next Wednesday, 24 July. Since US President Biden has repeatedly held that the creastion of a Palestinian state is necessary for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the vote was intended to undermine the US position. To further indicate the growing distance between the US and the Netanyahu government, the Israeli national security ministar, Itamar Ben-Gvir, prayed at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, stating that he had prayed for the Israeli government to not sign a cease-fire agreement over Gaza.
Today, however, the International COurt of Justice relieased its findings in a Advisory Position which was requested by the UN General Assembly in 2022. The decision, “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem“, forcefully reiterated previous legal findings that the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank, territories seized by Israel in the war of 1967, violated both the Geneva and Hague Conventions on occupied territories:
“Conclusion on Israel’s settlement policy
155. In light of the above, the Court reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the régime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 184, para. 120).
“156. The Court notes with grave concern reports that Israel’s settlement policy has been expanding since the Court’s Wall Advisory Opinion. In particular, in December 2022 Israel’s parliament approved the establishment of an additional minister within the Ministry of Defence vested with governing powers in the West Bank, including land designations, planning and co-ordination of demolitions, which would expedite the approval process for new settlements. Also, the size of existing Israeli settlements expanded from 1 November 2022 to 31 October 2023 at a significant rate, with approximately 24,300 housing units within existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank being advanced or approved, including approximately 9,670 in East Jerusalem (“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”, UN doc. A/HRC/55/72 (1 February 2024), paras. 7 and 10).” (p. 47)
“On July 19th the International Court of Justice (icj) rejected all of Israel’s legal claims in response to a request for a legal opinion by the United Nations General Assembly. In a series of coruscating majority rulings, it said that Israel’s prolonged presence can no longer be considered a temporary military occupation, but amounts to illegal annexation that undermines the rights of the Palestinians living there to self-determination. It said the occupation, ‘transfer by Israeli of settlers to the West Bank and Jerusalem’ and ‘forced displacement’ of Palestinians are clear breaches of international law. The bottom line, according to the judges, is that ‘Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful’ and that the Jewish state is ‘under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities’ and evacuate the settlers already there.
“’Successive Israeli governments have treated the settlements, as well as Israeli control over the area, as an immovable fact on the ground and not even made a pretence of negotiating with the Palestinians,’ says Eliav Lieblich, a professor of international law at Tel Aviv University. ‘This [ruling] was inevitable.’”
The decision is not enforceable. The International Court of Justice can only refer matters to the UN Security Council, and this is only an Advisory Decision. But there are members of the Security Council who would not be willing to even entertain an enforcement resolution. Nonetheless, the decision further isolates Israel and its allies from the vast majority of the states in the United Nations. Currently, 145 of the 193 member states in the UN recognize an independent Palestinian state.
What is most inrtiguing about the decision is that the preferred position of the US on the Israeli-Palestdinian question is that the only possible resolution lies in the creation of an independent Palestine. But the US insists that such an outcome needs to be negotiated and not imposed. The Israeli occupation has lasted for 57 years, and there have been numerous negotiations over those years which have had no discernable effect toward any effective resolution. There is no reason to believe that further negotiations will yield different outcomes. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu released this statement after the Court’s decision: “The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land, including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in Judea and Samaria, our historical homeland. No absurd opinion in The Hague can deny this historical truth or the legal right of Israelis to live in their own communities in our ancestral home.”
The time has long past for the US to indulge the fantasy of negotiations. The International Court of Justice has created an opportunity for the US to change its position.
On 8 February 2024, US President Biden issued National Security Memorandum 20 (NSM20) to avoid a showdown with Democratic Senators who were threatening to pass an amendment to restrict US military aids to Israel because of its use of US weaponry in the conduct of the war in Gaza. The Senators believed that the weapons were already being used in a manner inconsistent with international and domestic laws safeguarding humanitarian use of the weapons and wanted the US to enforce the laws more stringently. According to Sarah Harrison, writing for Lawfare:
“Which is why it comes across as misleading that President Biden cites these laws and policies in NSM-20, a document based on the Van Hollen amendment, which was originally intended to put pressure on his administration to comply with them. If applied objectively, the president’s own Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy, the departments of State and Defense Leahy laws, and 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act—all of which are cited in NSM-20—arguably restrict some assistance to Israel. But so far, public reporting and indications from U.S. officials make clear that is not happening. (NSM-20 also references end-use monitoring requirements, though the State Department does not interpret them to mandate monitoring of actual use of equipment, but to strictly prevent diversion.)”
Importantly, NSM20 requires that such a determination be made within 45 days from the onset of a conflict in which US miliatary assistance is being used. The report from the State Department was released yesterday, a few days past that deadline. It is a textbook case in sophistry, holding two conclusions that do not support the policy recommendation.
The first conclusion is: “Nevertheless, given Israel’s significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles, it is reasonable to assess that defense articles covered under NSM-20 have been used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in instances inconsistent with its IHL obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm.” (p. 22) That conclusion is followed by several pages of examples of Israeli military activity violating international humantiarian law.
That conclusion, however, does not suffice to halt military deliveries; the laws also require the US to assess whether the recipient of US military assistance is taking all necessary steps to follow international humanitarian law. If such measures are being taken, then the US can still legally provide aid, hoping that those measures can mitigate the harm to civilian populations.
However, the second conclusion is: “While Israel has the knowledge, experience, and tools to implement best practices for mitigating civilian harm in its military operations, the results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases.” (p. 28)
By these criteria, the US should stop all military assistance to Israel until there is more effective implementation of the requirements of international humanitarian law. But that course of action is not what the report calls for. The final policy recommendation (pp. 31-2) is: “While the USG has had deep concerns during the period since October 7 about action and inaction by Israel that contributed significantly to a lack of sustained and predictable delivery of needed assistance at scale, and the overall level reaching Palestinian civilians – while improved – remains insufficient, we do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance within the meaning of section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act. This is an ongoing assessment and we will continue to monitor and respond to any challenges to the delivery of aid to Palestinian civilians in Gaza moving forward.”
The most benign interpretation of the incoherence of this document is that there are two competing factions in the State Department that failed to reach a compromise. A less benign interpretation is that the State Department had already decided not to follow the law and decided merely to follow the letter of the law with an act of obfuscation. Ni matter, the US should be ashamed of being an accomplice to the crime in Gaza.
The US vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council which would have enabled the Palestinians to secure a seat in the United Nations. There were two abstentions (the UK and Switzerland) and all the other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution. At the daily Press Briefing at the State Department, Vedant Patel, the spokesperson at the State Department, explained the US decision in a Question and Answer exchange:
“MR PATEL: So Matt, since October 7th, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed. And it remains our view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.
We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in the report of the admission committee, there was not unanimity among the committee members as to whether the applicant met the criteria of membership set forth in Article 4 of the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to whether the applicant can meet criteria to be considered as a state.
And Matt, as you also know, we’ve long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas, which is – as you all know – a terrorist organization, is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution. And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution….
QUESTION: All right. And then you said the most – you believe, the U.S. believes that the most expeditious way to statehood is through direct negotiations. So just to make sure, I just kind of – I just googled “expeditious”: “Marked by or acting with prompt efficiency.” How many years has it been since Oslo?
MR PATEL: It’s been —
QUESTION: Isn’t the most expeditious way to Palestinian statehood to have a – have some kind of an announcement or a determination by the UN? Unless you’re not —
MR PATEL: We don’t think so.
QUESTION: Unless you don’t really mean expeditious, because expeditious means fast.
MR PATEL: We do mean expeditious, and we do not believe that the pathway through New York and the United Nations is the best path forward. And as I so noted, such action through the United Nations would statutorily require the United States to cease its funding to the UN. That’s certainly not something we’re interested in doing either.
I take your point on the number of years it has been Oslo, but this is something that we will continue to pursue, because we so firmly believe that it is in – not just in the interest of the Palestinian people, but it is a key tenet of establishing peace and security for the people of Israel as well.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.
QUESTION: Vedant, so what is the U.S. alternative and the expeditious path to two-state solution, then, if you guys have blocked this?
MR PATEL: You’ve heard us talk about this pretty clearly, Humeyra. We’re continuing to press for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages, one that is coupled with the influx of additional humanitarian aid, and one that we hope can create additional conditions for broader diplomatic conversations that we think can lead to greater peace and stability in the region. This is a process. I will note that “expeditious” does not mean easy, but it is a process, and we’re going to —
QUESTION: Yeah, but it does mean fast.
MR PATEL: But it is one that we’re going to continue to work at.
This tortured exchange reflects the reality that the US has no coherent plan for the fate of the Palestinian people. The US veto was ill-advised and short-sighted.. After asserting the two-state solution was the only possible solution to the conflict in the Gaza Strip, the US is now on record as opposing the move unless that outcome was determined by negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. But successful negotiations have been stalled for thirty years, due to the emergence of a settler movement which holds that all the lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 war belong to Israel and Israel alone. The US offered no substantive reason to believe that negotiations now will lead to a Palestinian state.
The Oslo Accords, signed by the Palestinians and Israel in 1994, called for the creation of a Palestinian State. That initative was derailed by the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November 1995 by ” Yigal Amir, an Israeli law student and ultranationalist who radically opposed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin‘s peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords.” Since that time, Israel has exercised almost complete control over the lives of the people living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The settler movement has now placed about 700,00 Israelis in the West Bank (all the settlers were forcibly removed from the Gaza Strip by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005). And the current violence against Palestinians in the West Bank surpasses all previous levels.
The irony is that the state of Israel was created by a vote in the United Nations General Assembly in 1947. The vote was 33-13 in favor partitioning the British Mandate called Palestine into three zones: a Jewish zone, an Arab zone, and an internationalized city of Jerusalem (no state could claim sovereignty over the city). The six Arab states walked out of the vote in protest. The UN made the state of Israel possible; there is no reason why it could not create a Palestinian state. But that possibility cannot occur as long as those in Israel who believe that all the lands were reserved for Jews have such power in Israeli politics. And we wait for the US to take some effective action to foster the two-state solution.
On 1 April 2024 Israel attacked the Iranian Consulate in Damascus, Syria. The attack killed seven members of the Islamic Revolutinary Guard, including two senior members. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) governs the status of such missions. Article 22 of the Convention spells out some of the protections for diplomatic sites:
Article 22 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke with Gallant on Monday and again on Thursday to discuss the current situation and “reaffirm the U.S. ironclad commitment to Israel’s security against threats from Iran and its proxies,” Ryder said.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken also spoke with Gallant on Wednesday to reiterate that same message, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said at the time.
And President Biden publicly warned Tehran on Wednesday during a White House Rose Garden press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
“We also want to address the Iranian threat to launch a … significant attack on Israel. As I told [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu], our commitment to Israel’s security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad,” Biden said.
I hope that these words are merely diplomatic fluff. Prime Minister Netanyahu committed an act of war against Iran with US-supplied weapons but without US knowledge or support. If he thinks that provoking Iran into an open conflict advances the interests of Israel, he is profoundly and criminally mistaken. The US should not allow itself to be manipulated into a larger, and unwinnable, war.
There are many reports about the deaths of over 100 Palestinians who were killed during a delivery of humanitarian assistance to northern Gaza. The truck delivering the aid was besieged by hungry people and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) fired live ammunition to disperse the crowd. The IDF claims that most of the people killed were crushed by the fleeing stampede; the Palestinians claim that most were killed by Israeli bullets.
Since the Israeli assualt on Gaza, living conditions in Gaza have deteriorated precipitously. The Associated Press reports:
“Maurizio Martina, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s deputy director general, described the horrific state of farmland, greenhouses, bakeries and irrigation systems that are essential to produce, process and distribute food.
“Since Oct. 9 – two days after the Hamas attacks – ‘the government of Israel’s reinforced blockade has included stopping or restricting food, electricity and fuel supplies, as well as commercial goods,’ he said.
“This has affected the entire food supply chain in different ways, Martina said.
“As examples, he said, severe restrictions on fuel shipments are crippling water supplies and the functioning of desalination plants, with the water supply at only 7% of pre-October levels. Fuel shortages have also crippled the production and delivery of food and electricity, and seriously hampered the ability of bakeries to produce bread, he said.
“Martina said the collapse of agricultural production in the north is already happening and in the most likely scenario will be complete by May. And as of Feb. 15, over 46% of all crop land in Gaza was assessed to be damaged, he said.”
There are a variety of reasons why deliveries of aid have failed to address the shortages. First, many of the agencies which supply aid, such as the UN World Food Program, have stopped deliveries because it is impossible to provide security for the delivery workers. To get around this problem, many countries are now air-dropping aid into Gaza. Second, some Israelis are preventing the delivery of aid through the Kerem Shalom checkpoint in an attempt to decrease the food available to Gazans, a blockade that the Washington Post claims is supported by the IDF forces guarding the checkpoint. Finally, the main agency supporting the Palesdtinian people, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) which has been supporting the Palestinian people since 1948, has been charged by Israel that some of its employees participated in the 7 October massacre and has suffered a dramatic drop off in support. According to Care International:
“UNRWA staff have faced near impossible conditions for months: in addition to the 158 UNRWA staff killed during the ongoing hostilities, at least 404 people in UNRWA shelters have been killed during the hostilities; almost 1,400 have been injured; and 155 UNRWA installations have been damaged. UNRWA workers continue to serve their community amid this unprecedented violence. The funding suspension will have wider regional implications that need to be carefully considered. In addition to Gaza, UNRWA operates in 4 other locations (West Bank- including East Jerusalem, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) where it delivers critical services such as education and healthcare.”
The situation in Gaza is catastrophic and the deaths of the Palestinians at the aid delivery site raises serious questions about whether any outside aid is possible under current conditions. There will unqeustionably be an investigation into what happened, but that investigation will be conducted by the IDF itself. Aside from Palestidnian journalists, there are no outside news agencies that have been allowed into Gaza. Haaretz makes the point: “Since the war began, Israel and Egypt have largely barred foreign reporters from entering Gaza. Of the handful of journalists who have been granted access to Gaza, almost all of them were ’embedded’ with the Israeli army, which brings with it a long list of restrictions.” Moreover, many Palestinian journalists have been killed in the conflict. Haaretz continues: “The most recent tally from the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists puts the number of journalists and media workers killed in the war at 99, according to their website. (This number includes two Israeli journalists, who were killed on October 7 during the Hamas attacks.)”.
Thus, we do not know what has actually happened in this war, aside from the fact that about 1200 Israelis were killed and approximately 200 hostages taken and over 30,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of which are women and children. Presumably, the Biden Administration has its own information sources, but the US response to the conflict is signiticantly at odds with the redponse of most other countries, including strong US allies. Fareed Zakaria assesses the US policy:
“The United States has repeatedly pressured Israel to make greater efforts to protect innocent civilians, but to little avail. Now it has been counseling against an invasion of Rafah, the city nestled close to Egypt where more than 1 million Palestinians have huddled together. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to invade Rafah, whether another hostage deal is made or not.
“The result is that American policy on the Gaza war now appears hapless, ineffective and immoral. The image of U.S. officials wringing their hands about civilian casualties while providing ever-more weapons is grotesque. The image of a president of the United States mumbling words such as ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘over the top‘ to describe Israel’s bombings suggests weakness and passivity.
“Part of the problem is that in trusting the Israeli government, Biden is trusting Netanyahu, an exceptionally clever politician who knows how to handle American presidents expertly and has done so for decades. This time, Bibi has outsmarted, outmaneuvered and outplayed Biden.”
We all need to be far better informed about what has happened in the Gaza Strip since last October. Without information that is independent of the warring parties, we are all allowing the tragedy to continue without respite for the innocents.
For the third time, the US has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in the conflict in the Gaza Strip. Instead, the US proposed a resolution that asked for “a temporary humanitarian cease-fire as soon as practical” and for the release of hostages. The more stringent resolution was proposed by Algeria and received 13 affirmative votes (Great Britain abstained). The US stands alone with Israel in opposition to an immediate cease-fire.
There is absolutely no justification for the US obstruction. It claimed that the Algerian resolution would jeopardize the current negotiations on the release of the hostages, but there is no credible evidence that those negotiations are making any progress whatsoever. Curiously, the US alternative resolution (which has not yet been submitted, but The Guardian claims to have seen a draft copy) “determines that under current circumstances a major ground offensive into Rafah would result in further harm to civilians and their further displacement including potentially into neighbouring countries, which would have serious implications for regional peace and security, and therefore underscores that such a major ground offensive should not proceed under current circumstances”. It seems that the US is at least calling for an immediate cease-fire with respect to the situation in Rafah.
Israel has said that it will conduct a military operation into Rafah by the beginning of Ramadan (in early March) if the hostages are not released. There are about 1.4 million Palestinians in Rafah and they have literally no place to go if the Israeli assault occurs. There are indications that Egypt is building a protected area in its Sinai territory which suggests that there is some sort of arrangement to push the Palestinians into this area when an assualt happens. According to Le Monde:
“According to the Sinai Foundation for Human Rights NGO, which revealed the existence of this construction site on February 12, the location is intended to accommodate Palestinian refugees, should Egypt face a mass exodus from Gaza. Local contractors told the NGO that they had been commissioned to carry out the work by the company Sons of Sinai, owned by businessman Ibrahim El-Argani, who is close to the Egyptian army. The 7-meter-high walls are to be built under the supervision of military engineers and a heavy security presence.
“Egyptian sources have confirmed on condition of anonymity to The Wall Street Journal that a walled enclosure with the capacity for more than 100,000 people has been set up. An Egyptian source told Le Monde that the fear of facing an influx of displaced persons in the event of an Israeli offensive on the town of Rafah was behind this decision. However, Diaa Rashwan, head of the government’s communications department, denied the existence of such a project. He pointed out that Egypt is opposed to any forced displacement of Gazans on its territory due to the war between Israel and Hamas in the Palestinian enclave.””Egyptian sources have confirmed on condition of anonymity to The Wall Street Journal that a walled enclosure with the capacity for more than 100,000 people has been set up. An Egyptian source told Le Monde that the fear of facing an influx of displaced persons in the event of an Israeli offensive on the town of Rafah was behind this decision. However, Diaa Rashwan, head of the government’s communications department, denied the existence of such a project. He pointed out that Egypt is opposed to any forced displacement of Gazans on its territory due to the war between Israel and Hamas in the Palestinian enclave.”
The Sinai Foundation for Human Rights has published a photo which outlines the areas that are being built up to handle refugees. The white area of the photo is where there is current construction; the green area is the total area under consideration for holding refugees.
There is no hard information about Israeli plans for those currently in Rafah, but the Egyptian construction suggests that there is consideration for pushing the refugees onto Egyptian territory. Such displacement is perilous: there is no guarantee that the Palestinians will be allowed back into the Gaza, opeing the possibility that the Netanyahu government may be considering settlements in the Strip. The Associated Press describes the history of previous displacements in the history of the region:
“Displacement has been a major theme of Palestinian history. In the 1948 war around Israel’s creation, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from what is now Israel. Palestinians refer to the event as the Nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe.”
“In the 1967 Mideast war, when Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 300,000 more Palestinians fled, mostly into Jordan.
“The refugees and their descendants now number nearly 6 million, most living in camps and communities in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The diaspora has spread further, with many refugees building lives in Gulf Arab countries or the West.
“After fighting stopped in the 1948 war, Israel refused to allow refugees to return to their homes. Since then, Israel has rejected Palestinian demands for a return of refugees as part of a peace deal, arguing that it would threaten the country’s Jewish majority.”
Representatives Pressley and Raskin sent a letter to the Biden Administration on 18 January 2024 asking for the US government to reiterate its opposition to forced displacement of Palestinians. It reads, in part:
“We write to support the Biden administration’s continued strong opposition to any consideration of the idea of forced transfer of Palestinians out of Gaza. We appreciate President Biden’s clear commitment, in calls with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah II, to ensure that Palestinians in Gaza will not be displaced to any other nation. We also welcome Vice President Harris’ assurance that ‘under no circumstances will the United States permit the forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank, the besiegement of Gaza, or the redrawing of the borders of Gaza.’ Additionally, we were glad to see you reiterate the administration’s firm opposition to the forcible displacement of Palestinians during a recent press conference in Doha.”
The US is abdicating its responsibility to uphold international law and its moral obligation to protect the lives of innocents. Further, it is relinquishing its already limited influence on the countries in the Middle East. There is also little evidence to support the idea that the US has a reliable ally in an Israeli government ruled by Netanyahu. The US is pursuing a policy that leaves it with no dependable friends in the region.
World Politics News 