Preparations for a ground offensive on Rafah force Hamas to accept the release of captives. But the distrust between the parties raises fears of a fatal failure.
“From here to Jerusalem, I send a very clear message: you will not chain our hands, and even if Israel must stand alone, it will stand alone and continue to fight our enemies until victory.” The statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on May 5 on the occasion of the commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day at the Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem, responded to the threat of the launch of arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court against senior Israeli officials, including himself, for the treatment of the Palestinian population of Gaza. But she could just as easily have responded to increasing international pressure for Israel to end its offensive in the Palestinian territory. “The first lesson of the Shoah is that if the Jewish people do not defend themselves, no one will come to their defense,” insisted the head of the Israeli government.
We know the trauma caused within the Israeli population by the massacre of October 7 committed by Hamas militiamen, the deadliest against Jews since World War II and the Holocaust. No doubt, many Israeli citizens share his determination. But does the incessant reminder of the memory of the Shoah encourage calm decision-making in the face of current challenges, set in a diametrically different context than that of 80 years ago? Benjamin Netanyahu himself admitted: Israel “today has a force capable of defending it.”
Gaza: evacuation of Rafah
This force is also capable of serving as a means of pressure against the adversary and of forging regulations where they were no longer expected. Monday May 6 in the evening, Hamas officially accepted the Egyptian and Qatari offer for an agreement providing for the release of around forty Israeli hostages in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian detainees from Israeli jails. During the day, the Israeli government launched a call for the evacuation of residents of the eastern districts of the city of Rafah, “invited” to reach humanitarian areas, to al-Mawasi on the Mediterranean coast, or to Khan Younès, further north. This measure seemed to foreshadow the attack long awaited by the Israeli government to eradicate the four Hamas battalions present in the locality at the southern end of the Palestinian territory, and so feared by its allies who feared that it would again lead to a human tragedy among the large population who took refuge there, fleeing the advance of the IDF for seven months.
This stated choice of the military route, rather than signaling the end of hopes for a “peaceful” release of the hostages still in the hands of Hamas, would ultimately have served of pressure instrument to force a chord. Israel, however, initially expressed reservations about the Palestinian green light, believing that the text perhaps did not correspond to that which its negotiators had approved. This reaction illustrates the extreme mistrust that reigns between the actors. Hamas’ demands were initially deemed unacceptable by the Israelis. The Islamist group hoped to get them to give up continuing their offensive in the territory, an inconceivable prospect for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. In addition, a rocket attack perpetrated on May 5 by the Palestinian Islamist group against the Kerem Shalom border crossing between southern Israel and the south of the Gaza Strip, which killed four Israeli soldiers, appeared to be a fatal provocation to any arrangement.Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant even warned his American counterpart Lloyd Austin that Israel had no choice but to launch a ground offensive on Rafah, from where The projectiles left, killing the Israeli soldiers.
At the same time, statements by a senior Israeli official New York Times shed a different light on the progress of the negotiations in Cairo. He assured that it was Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments on his objective of carrying out an operation in Rafah which had derailed the negotiations with Hamas. The rest of the story denies this scenario, even if it may have hindered the conclusion of an agreement for a time. If he finally achieves consensus, he will push back the prospect of the IDF’s latest battle in the Gaza Strip and the consequences it could have. Didn’t American Secretary of State Antony Blinken warn that such an operation would cause damage “beyond acceptable”?
Diplomatic battle
Whatever the outcome of the Cairo negotiations, Israel can it allow itself by entering Rafah today or tomorrow to increase its isolation? Bolivia, Belize and, more recently, Colombia, all three led by left-wing figures, have severed diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. Essentially symbolic positions. More significant and damaging for Israelis is the decision announced on May 2 by Turkey to suspend its commercial relations with Israel. “We cannot accept what Israel is doing in the Palestinian territories,” justified President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Netanyahu is ruthless, and that is what he has shown with women, children and the elderly in Gaza.” Volume commercial exchanges between the two countries amounted in 2023 to some seven billion dollars. Above all, a third of Israel’s oil needs pass through the Turkish port of Ceyhan from Azerbaijan. At the start of the week, however, these exports were not affected by the Turkish decision, undoubtedly requiring the agreement of Azeri President Ilham Aliev, considered relatively close to Benjamin Netanyahu. The consequences of Turkey’s toughening, which rolled out the red carpet for Hamas leader Ismaïl Haniyeh at the end of April, could therefore be serious for the Jewish state.
The isolation of the Israeli government is also reflected in the intention displayed by more and more states to recognize a Palestinian state. Belgium, through the voice of Minister of Foreign Affairs Hadja Lahbib, expressed the intention on May 6, joining Ireland, Malta, Slovenia and Spain who have expressed it since October 7. Whatever Benjamin Netanyahu thinks, the two-state solution as a response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is indeed back in international discussion forums. But the Israeli Prime Minister is too preoccupied with his war objective and his political survival to realize today the effects for Israel of this political shift.
“Antony Blinken warned that a ground operation in Rafah would cause damage “beyond acceptable”.”
“The isolation of the Israeli government is also reflected in the intention displayed by more and more states to recognize a Palestinian state.”
