Israeli army tactics imply that Gaza can expect more premeditated aggression

The Israel army have embarked upon simultaneous exercises which imply its commanders’ intention to launch yet more premeditated aggression against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. On Sunday, for example, 2,000 army reserves participated in a surprise drill simulating “war in Gaza”, reported the Times of Israel. IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, who was present during the drill, described the exercise as the means to “assess the preparedness of the division for emergency.”

Citing an increased training programme, Eisenkot added, “Cunning is what makes the difference, and that’s what we need to get, with the understanding that if there is a need for another [military campaign], we will know how to surprise in every way, to prevent enemy achievements.”

On Wednesday, Eisenkot also discussed the tunnel network with Israeli lawmakers and embarked upon seemingly contradictory rhetoric when compared to that employed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the 2014 military offensive against the enclave. “The underground threat is the most serious, and that is how we treat it,” said the IDF chief of staff, “but I don’t think it is right to define [the tunnels] as an existential or strategic threat, and intimidate ourselves.”

Read: The Human Rights Council must take a stand against Israeli apartheid

In the aftermath of Israel’s 2014 “Operation Protective Edge”, the tunnel network was, apparently, a rhetorical priority. It provided a convenient, acceptable excuse for Netanyahu to invite international collaboration in depriving Gaza of the necessary construction material which would have allowed for the building of basic shelters for families displaced when their homes were destroyed by the IDF’s precision strikes targeting civilian areas.

The Israeli State Comptroller’s report about the 2014 colonial aggression was also mired in additional controversy regarding the tunnels. It cited a lack of planning with regard to the their destruction, an endeavour in which Israel has been assisted by Egypt.

However, despite such differences, it is clear that both the report and Netanyahu aimed at portraying the tunnels as a “strategic threat”. Eisenkot, although attempting a different approach, will build upon the discrepancies highlighted by the Comptroller’s report to ensure that another bout of aggression on Gaza will aim for the complete disappearance, rather than displacement, of the Palestinians.

Read: Israel demolishes Bedouin village of Al-Araqeeb for 110th time

If both the tunnel rhetoric and the military drills are read within context, it is clear that the keyword, as emphasised by Eisenkot, is “emergency”. Whatever military capabilities Hamas might have, they are dwarfed when compared to Israel’s advanced military and defence systems. Hence, it is important to assert that any notion of “emergency” can only be defined and created by Israel. Gaza’s unique circumstances also constitute proof of the identity of the aggressors, in case of yet another IDF massacre of Palestinian civilians. A blockaded strip of land and a displaced population facing severe humanitarian consequences with not even the possibly of adequate temporary relief cannot determine the concept of the type of emergency which Israel, through Eisenkot, is alluding to. If “emergency” is determined by Israel, it is equally clear that the terminology is simply a euphemism for premeditated aggression against a largely defenceless civilian population.

Israel, therefore, is planning its strategy in advance. It is neither Hamas nor Palestinian civilians in Gaza who will prompt the next military offensive. Rather, it is Israel which is preparing to launch another round of violence, at a time of its own choosing to coincide with its political and colonial scheming. It will most probably happen when the world’s attention is focused elsewhere, given Israel’s historical tendency to make use of international distraction to embark upon massacres that catch the world’s attention only when the damage is done. Pragmatism, while a propagated trait of Eisenkot, is unlikely to yield less bloodshed. On the contrary, Israel’s insistence upon “emergency” measures and “preparedness” signifies a meticulous approach towards eliminating the indigenous population.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.