In one war Israel defeated Hamas, (it now has no clear chain of command or a formidable armed wing), Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria and Iran. It’s therefore disappointing that rather than acknowledge Israel’s achievements last week we joined 27 other countries in signing a joint statement on the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” urging Israel to stop the fighting. Anthony Albanese further emphasised these concerns in a statement on Friday: “Israel’s denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored’, he said.
Hamas’s evil use of human shields against Isreal has been to maximise the deaths of its fellow Palestinians. Using civilians as pawns is part of its strategy to delegitimise Israel around the world. Hamas tunnels aren’t open to civilians for protection. Silencing the guns will significantly ease the severe humanitarian situation with the prospect of better aid distribution and additional casualties avoided. Many of Israel’s international partners are increasingly uneasy about the humanitarian impact of the war. Some Israeli analysts worry that widespread trauma in Gaza could serve as a fertile ground for a subsequent insurgency, not necessarily under a Hamas banner.
But returning to the previous UN dominated aid system that Hamas exploited by stealing food would risk Hamas maintaining itself in power and keep the war going, a result that would hardly benefit Gazans in the longer term. The current Hamas business model, with their isolation from Iranian and Qatari funds, has been to loot relief supplies and control the black market to pay their operatives in food and money. They are exhibiting the same ruthlessness they apply to anyone who calls for Hamas to stop the war, lay down their arms and release hostages.
The joint statement itself is inconsistent. At one point it calls for a “negotiated” ceasefire and then later for an “unconditional” ceasefire.
How do you negotiate something unconditionally? It just means abandoning the hostages and leaves open the possibility of future Hamas terrorism. Hamas is hardly likely to agree to a US-sponsored agreement now when Australia and other nations are demanding Israel simply end all pressure on Hamas without conditions, with the implication here that Hamas will continue to rule the Strip. That would make any reconstruction efforts extremely difficult. Key Arab states are waiting for a ceasefire and then engage in rebuilding Gaza.
While much of our media has blindly accepted Hamas-sourced claims about the situation in Gaza, there’s no doubt there’s a humanitarian crisis. The destruction of Gaza is immense: almost the entire population have been displaced at one point or another, and there’s shortages of clean water, food, medicine, and electricity. The current offensive will almost certainly result in more civilian deaths and suffering. Such is the tragic horror of all wars, even though Israeli incursions are preceded by efforts to evacuate civilians from harm’s way, including announcing “safe zones” or humanitarian corridors.
But calling for an immediate end to the war “now” encourages Hamas intransigence by those that want to play the hostage card to secure an IDF withdrawal and maintain exclusive control over the Strip. It provides no incentive in negotiations for those elements in Hamas who wish to give up governing post-war Gaza, dismantle its military wing, join the Palestinian Authority and uphold a two-state solution.
US mediators say Israel is bending over backwards to reach a ceasefire deal, and Hamas is repeatedly refusing. In a recent interview the US Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Adam Boehler, said that the current deal on the table — which would see Hamas release at least 10 remaining hostages in exchange for a path to peace — is the “best they’re going to get. We need to get the other hostages out. And then what we have done is, we have said, ‘Hey, there’s a firm pathway to negotiate peace’”.
The US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also recently stated that Hamas is the hold up on a hostage agreement: “They have been the impediment since October the 7th. And every time Israel puts something on the table, makes concessions, says, here’s what we’re willing to do, Hamas says, we will think about that. Then they come back and say no.”
Hamas welcomed the joint statement, noting its call for an immediate end to the war and the introduction of aid through the UN. But it’s noteworthy that it ignored the statement’s reference for the release of the hostages and condemned Hamas for detaining the hostages. By selective quoting from it, Hamas shows they are using it for propaganda.
This week there is a High-Level UN conference on the two-state solution inNew York co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia that had been postponed by the Israel-Iran war. We are not likely to see immediate announcements on recognition of a Palestinian state as the event is an interim step towards another conference later this year. But last weekPresident Macron announced that France would make a formal announcement to recognise Palestine as a state at the UN General Assembly in September.
It now appears likely that Australia will recognise Palestinian statehood sometime this year, (although the government might wait till Albanese has met Trump), arguing that it’s the way to build momentum towards a two-state solution. But this would be a meaningless gesture before a peace agreement is negotiated directly between Israel and the Palestinians and hand a victory laurel to Hamas for its campaign across the past twenty-one months
Anthony Bergin is a senior fellow at Strategic Analysis Australia.