Dangerous dilemmas in Hamas’ trap
The savagery of Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7 was a declaration by Gaza’s leadership that this day would change everything. There would be no return to any kind of normality between the Palestinians and Israel. Hamas urged all Palestinians and their allies to join the battle. Either because Iran was not ready, or because the US reaction was swift and decisive, with the dispatch of an aircraft carrier and with President Joe Biden visiting Israel, Hamas’ call for wider conflict went unheeded. The terrorist group’s Plan B (which was clearly part of Plan A), was a large “harvest” of Israeli hostages – alive or dead. Hamas knew that this would be a mighty weapon with which it could protect itself while also dividing Israeli society. The dilemma that Israel has faced since then is whether the aim of eradicating Hamas could justify the loss of the hostages.
As the months pass and more lives are lost, it becomes clear how well Hamas manages savagery. It did not divide only Israeli society – the rift spread to the country’s strongest allies, too. The United States, Germany, other EU states, and Britain face their own dilemma: Should they support Israel at all costs, even when this causes problems in their own politics and society, even when the rules-based international system of governance is undermined? The dilemma becomes even more complicated when Israel’s very survival is at stake, something that Biden is aware of. As the war continues, as reaction grows at the level of societies, countries and international institutions (such as the International Court of Justice), Israel’s friends are weakened and its enemies emboldened. At the same time, Biden’s efforts to manage Benjamin Netanyahu divide the Democrats while strengthening the Republicans. When Trump was president, he had encouraged Israel to the point that it became complacent, allowing it to be caught by surprise by Hamas. A new Trump presidency would lead to unlimited support for Israel, to greater miscalculations, and to the greater isolation of the United States and Israel, to the benefit of Iran, Russia, China, and others.
The chess-like strategy with which Hamas set its trap is evident in the way Netanyahu persists with his campaign in Gaza. Setting Hamas’ elimination and the rescue of the hostages as his target, wanting to show that no one can strike Israel without bringing catastrophe upon his head, any climbdown by the Israeli prime minister will be seen as a defeat. Only clear victory for Israel could “justify” persistence with its Gaza policy. The greater the pain, though, the greater the influence that extremists on both sides acquire. The rest, who would want an honorable compromise, are obliged to support extremists, knowing that if they do not support their side, defeat will have disastrous consequences for them, too. All are trapped by this dilemma.
Can the cycle of violence be broken without one or other side being destroyed? This would take leadership that has the legitimacy and the guts to pursue a viable solution. It would need support from the international community in terms of a plan, money and enough space to assure the survival of both sides. Today all of this looks more improbable than ever.
