Opinion: Navigating complexities of a war
Palestinians in Gaza are at the receiving end and the territorial dispute might remain a ticking time bomb
By Anudeep Gujjeti
On October 7, Hamas, a United States-proscribed terrorist organisation, which is backed by Iran, fired a barrage of rockets at Israel. This invasion took place in a highly coordinated manner, hitherto unheard of, through air, water and land, killing civilians, including children, the elderly and women. As they paraded the dead bodies of civilians on the back of trucks, Hamas took scores of Israeli civilians and defence personnel as hostages. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared war and ordered a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip.
Also Read
Palestinian civilians are paying the price for acts of violence that they have not committed and nor do they have any hand in the actions of Hamas. Hamas wants to eliminate Israel but to what end and what are the geopolitical consequences of the ongoing war?
Changing Geopolitics
Hamas’ attack came at a time when the geopolitics of the region is undergoing a rapid change. Years of animosity between Arab nations and Israel started to give way for normalisation in the way of the Abraham Accords. A Trump administration initiative, the Abraham Accords, intends to normalise the diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab nations and herald a greater economic, political and security integration of the Middle East. These accords, a series of agreements signed in 2020 between Israel and Arab states with the mediation of the US, marked a historic shift in the diplomatic relations in the Middle East. States like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco agreed to normalise relations with Israel under these accords mostly to improve relations and to receive concessions from the US.
This normalisation is viewed with suspicion by the Palestinians who consider that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has fallen down the list of priorities among the world community in general and among Arab nations in particular. Another such normalisation exercise is on the cards between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia wants security concessions from the US which include a US-Saudi Arabia defence pact and the US help in Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear programme to normalise relations with Israel. However, at the same time Saudi Arabia wants Israel to improve conditions for the Palestinians.
In doing so, the US wants, in the words of US national security adviser Jake Sullivan to “depressurise, de-escalate and ultimately integrate the Middle East region” while veering away Saudi Arabia from the influence of China. In all these, Hamas is nowhere to be found and at the same time Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite militant group, along with Hamas and Iran, are opposed to any kind of normalisation talk with Israel. It appears that all the parties involved in the normalisation process underestimated the potential of Hamas to conduct such a deadly attack and undermine the normalisation process in the region. With this war, doubts have been cast over this process especially when Israel appears to prepare for long-term war while Hezbollah has opened up multiple fronts of confrontation in northern Israel.
Strategic Calculus
Hamas, with this attack, brought the issue of Palestine back into the strategic calculus of the region and dented the image of the most coveted security apparatus of Israel and simultaneously proved the dangers it can pose to the survival of Israel as a country. This attack also showed how Arab nations for the first time differed in their response. The UAE and Bahrain, which signed the Abraham Accords in 2020, criticised the Hamas.
Bahrain slammed Hamas by saying that the attack constituted “a dangerous escalation that threatens the lives of civilians” and it denounced the reported kidnappings of civilians in order to create a hostage situation. The UAE criticised the Hamas attack as a “serious and grave escalation” and said that it was “appalled” by the civilian hostages. The US is sending aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford and its accompanying warships to the eastern Mediterranean to bolster regional deterrence efforts and provide all the required support to Israel. US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said the US would provide the Israel Defence Forces with additional equipment and resources, including ammunition. This comes at a time when the US is dealing with the Russia and Ukraine crisis and the ongoing domestic tussle in providing funding to Ukraine.
On its part, the European union reversed its decision to “immediately stop” payments to the Palestinian Authority and said it would review the payments instead of suspending the 600 million euro a year. Leaving this aside, the geoeconomic and geopolitical implications of the war are going to be manifold and the impact would be felt all across the globe.
Nevertheless, Hamas wanted to end the status quo and change the dynamics in the region whereas now, Israel wants to do the same in its favour. Peace for two important stakeholders in the ongoing war ie, the people of Israel and that of Palestine, depends on how this war evolves and unfolds in the coming days. If anything history has taught us, it is that violence begets violence. Hamas started the latest war but at the receiving end remain the ordinary Palestinians in Gaza who have nowhere to go and the territorial dispute might remain a ticking time bomb.
In realpolitik, a two-state solution is feasible only when Israel feels safe with Palestinians as its neighbour. However, the brutal attack by Hamas, its long-lasting image in the minds of Israeli citizens and the ensuing siege on Palestinians in Gaza by Israel would render it a distant dream.
