Israel’s war on Gaza is counterproductive

The Israeli war against the Gaza Strip will soon enter its third week. More than 6,000 air strikes have killed 4,651 Palestinians in Gaza as of yesterday, compared with 1,400 Israeli victims of the Hamas attack on 7 October. Aside from matters of ethics and legality, it is difficult to see the calculated rationale behind Israel’s bombing campaign against a largely civilian population. It neither targets resistance bases nor helps hostages taken by Hamas; both are reportedly in underground passages that the resistance groups use. Furthermore, the war is taking hundreds of thousands  of Israelis away from their jobs, risking economic damage. At this stage, the military campaign appears far more reactive than it is productive. Which begs the question: Did Israel not have a contingency plan in place for such events as the 7 October attack?

READ: More than 400 killed by Israel in Gaza in 24 hours

A more logical response would have been to implement measured military and political moves. Military actions solely targeting Hamas bases, rather than bombing civilians in a widely criticised display of “collective punishment” could have complemented diplomatic engagement with neighbouring countries to gain their support for a proportionate response.

Israel would have been especially well-positioned to do this given its recent establishment of diplomatic ties with Turkiye, the UAE, Morocco, Bahrain and Sudan. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan initially offered to mediate in the crisis with Hamas, an unusually balanced response from a leader who has previously used strong, anti-Israel language. However, Israel rejected this offer and continued its air strikes on residential areas, medical facilities and evacuation routes, leading Erdogan to publicly castigate the occupation state.

This war will continue to challenge Israel’s ties in the region as it threatens to spill over into neighbouring countries. Egyptian concerns about Palestinian refugees in the already unstable Sinai have led President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi to pressure Israel to allow aid into Gaza. The conflict may test the 44-year bilateral relationship between Egypt and Israel, as Al-Sisi wards off the possibility of around one million displaced Palestinians suddenly becoming his responsibility. The security implications for neighbouring countries are significant. Attacks of such a scale, on both adults and children alike, risk radicalising thousands of surviving and traumatised youths in Gaza. Even in the event that the Israel Defence Forces eliminate Hamas as a fighting force, this will create a power vacuum in Gaza that will only further destabilise the nominal border, creating more enemies on Israel’s and Egypt’s doorsteps in the long run.

READ: Israel: protesters demand end to war in Gaza and return of hostages

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has halted normalisation talks with Israel in light of current events. One of Riyadh’s main conditions for normalisation had been the improvement of conditions for the Palestinians, and the pursuit of the two-state solution. The long-term implications of the war for this deal are presently unclear. This is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s first time in dealing with an Israel-related conflict of this scale. With anti-Zionist sentiments and worries about the economy running high, he may be reconsidering the direction of his leadership’s Israel policy. Diplomacy with Saudi Arabia would have been an immense boost for Israel’s quest for wider recognition, but its attacks on Gaza have slowed, not advanced, progress. They have also jeopardised its standing with other Arab states. Israel may have normalised ties with more countries in the Middle East, but it must learn to stop behaving like an outlier. Creating those ties means prioritising their stability over destructive retaliation.

The conflict escalating into a multilateral war is, at this stage, a possibility

The most worrying implication for regional security, however, centres on the role of Iran. President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian each stated recently that Israel would face consequences for its alleged attack on a hospital in Gaza. Meanwhile, Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon has also been exchanging missile fire with the IDF across the border since the Gaza war began. The conflict escalating into a multilateral war is, at this stage, a possibility. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, France and Germany have all issued warnings to their respective nationals living in Lebanon to leave the country.

Reactions from the international community have shifted gradually over the past couple of weeks. The continuous bombardment of primarily civilian-populated areas has earned public disapproval in countries such as Ireland, Norway, Spain and Russia. There is potential for a rift to emerge between European countries over their stances on the issue. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has faced strong criticism for declaring support for Israel without first getting the consensus of EC member states. The consequences go far beyond her own role: Europe may face a significant test of unity and shared values concerning Israel’s actions.

 ‘From river to sea’: Thousands attend latest pro-Palestine rally in London

Even Israel’s closest ally may eventually tire of its reckless behaviour. Aside from undertaking rapid and “frenzied diplomacy” on Tel Aviv’s behalf with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt, the US has been taking punches for it. Bin Salman snubbed US Secretary of State Antony Blinken when the latter flew to Riyadh to meet the de facto ruler of the Kingdom. It may soon occur to the White House that no matter how strong the alliance, a superpower should not be expending such significant energy and last-minute attempts at political cajoling on a small state’s behalf. Nor should the said superpower’s senior diplomat risk being publicly embarrassed in the pursuit of that task, not least if the small state’s actions are exposing US President Joe Biden himself to accusations that his Middle East policy is crumbling. The conflict has also stirred internal issues for the US government, with at least one State Department official resigning in protest and rumours of a mutiny brewing in the Pentagon, seemingly unheeded by Blinken. Washington would be particularly wise to consider at length whether it wants to be dragged into another protracted war in the Middle East, which would probably mean the waste of the diplomatic achievements of the past few years, such as the Abraham Accords.

Tel Aviv is playing a peculiar game, one in which it has the endless patience of the White House, the undivided support of Europe, and immunity to short- and long-term regional repercussions. But it appears to be playing it alone.

OPINION: The terror narratives protecting Israel’s colonial violence

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