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.
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.
“Total victory requires eliminating the terrorist leaders and destroying Hamas’s military and governing capabilities. Total victory requires returning our hostages home. Total victory requires that Gaza be demilitarized, under Israel’s full security control, with Israeli control over everything that enters Gaza. These are also the fundamental conditions for ‘the day after’.”
“The decades of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he declared during the primetime appearance at the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv, are ‘not about the absence of a state, a Palestinian state, but rather about the existence of a state, a Jewish state.’
“’All territory we evacuate, we get terror, terrible terror against us,’ he said, citing Gaza, southern Lebanon and parts of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Therefore, ‘in any future arrangement, or in the absence of an arrangement,’ he said, Israel must maintain ‘security control’ of all territory west of the Jordan River — meaning, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. ‘That is a vital condition.’
“He acknowledged that this ‘contradicts the idea of sovereignty [for the Palestinians]. What can you do? I tell this truth to our American friends.’”
That sounds an awful lot like “from the River to the Sea”. It is also in near total opposition to the possibility of a two-state solution, which remains the official US position on what should occur on the ‘day after’. I think that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will do whatever he thinks is necessary for Israeli security, regardless of what the US or other allies think. That position is the essence of sovereignty. But it is exactly the position that Netanyahu thinks should be denied to a Palestinian state.
The US and the EU should state publicly that if Israel does not recommit to the Oslo Accords, including the 5 year limit for the creation of a Palestinian state, that they will no longer grant any more financial aid. If the Israeli government believes that its security requires the subordination of 7 million Palestinians, then it should be prepared to pay the price for that security from its own revenues.
It seems to me that Israeli Prime Minister is trying to goad Iran into war. A drone attack in Beirut assassinated Saleh Al-Arouri,deputy head of the political bureau of Hamas, on Tuesday. Al-Arouri acted as a liaison between Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon and was a critical figure in Hamas. Although Israel has not taken responsibility for the act, it seems clear that there are few other possibilities. And that act was followed by two bomb explosions near the tomb of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani which killed almost 100 people who were observing the 4th anniversary of Soleimani’s assassination by US forces. Again, Israel has not taken responsibility for the bombing, but it seems likely that Israel coordinated the attack.
The attacks elicited responses from both Hezbollah and Iran. The Washington Post reports:
“Hezbollah chief Hasan Nasrallah said in an address Wednesday that Israel should expect ‘a response and punishment’ a day after the death of senior Hamas leader Saleh Arouri in a suspected Israeli drone strike in a Beirut suburb. Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militant group based in Lebanon, has traded fire with Israel in recent weeks, though the Lebanese government said it was urging Hezbollah to show restraint. ‘If the enemy thinks of waging a war on Lebanon,’ Nasrallah said, they ‘will regret it.’”
The New York Times reports on the reaction from Iran:
“Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a statement blaming the attack on Iran’s ‘malicious and criminal enemies,’ but stopped short of naming any group or country. Mr. Khamenei vowed that Iran’s enemies should know that ‘this tragedy will have a strong response.’
“While no group has claimed responsibility for the attack, Iran’s president, Ebrahim Raisi, seemed to blame the country’s archrivals, the United States and Israel. ‘We tell the criminal America and Zionist regime that you will pay a very high price for the crimes you have committed and will regret it,’ he said.”
It is no secret that Netanyahu has long regarded Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel and opposed the multilateral deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action which was designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons (an agreement that US President Trump unilaterally abrogated in 2017). Netanyahu has supported a military action against Iran for a long time and he regards Iran as the main supporter of Hamas, something which is unquestionably true. And earlier this year. Fox News reported that Israel was preparing for an attack to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities:
“Israel will prepare for possible action against Iran’s nuclear facilities after a series of secret meetings between the prime minister and leaders from the defense and intelligence ministries, according to a leaked report.
“‘Israel will not allow Iran to become nuclear,’ Brigadier-General (Reserves) Amir Avivi, founder and chairman of the Israeli Defense Security Forum, told Fox News Digital. ‘As we are witnessing the continued unhindered progress of the Iranian military nuclear program with weapons-grade enrichment, Israel is readying its credible military option.’
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held five meetings with his defense and intelligence chiefs, as well as the head of Mossad, to discuss the possible attack, local news outlet Channel 12 reported. The report did not name any source, and The Times of Israel speculated that officials could have leaked the report in order to make clear the country’s resolve and intent.”
It is not clear why Netanyahu would want to attack Iran at this particular point in time given the current action in the Gaza which is already straining the Israeli economy. But it could be that Netanyahu thinks that his current abysmal standing in the opinion polls in Israel could be bolstered by a successful attack on Iran and might ultimately vindicate his hawkish policies. Moreover, it is not clear to me that either Hezbollah or Iran would want to engage in open conflict with Israel. But both of those parties are now in a very difficult position given the atrocities that are occurring in the Gaza.
If my paranoid fears turn out to be true (and I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to be proven so wrong), the US should wash its hands of Israeli military action. Under no circumstances should the US come to the aid of Israel in a war against Iran, no matter what provocations are assumed to be Iranian-inspired.
World Politics News 