The reality is that the war between Israel and Hamas is a highly complex geopolitical nightmare. As a podcaster I have tried to take a balanced approach to the situation. I have spoken with representatives of the Israeli Defense Force as well as the prominent Palestinian theologian and elected member of the Palestinian Authority Rev. Mitre Raheb and others. With over 30,000 Palestinians killed, starvation becoming rampant and what seems to be indiscriminate shootings, it is becoming nearly impossible to maintain a balanced approach to this conflict.
Nonetheless, this is more complicated from a historical, political and geopolitical perspective than most people are willing to admit. While people across America are correct in their sentiment towards a free Palestinian people, the complexity of this debacle is largely ignored. From the Balfour Agreement, The 1967 Six Day War, UN resolution 242, Camp David Accords, Madrid Conference, Oslo 1 and Oslo 2 there have been many attempts to bring about a resolution of this conflict.
From an historical perspective both sides have had opportunities to resolve this decades long conflict and share blame albeit not equally for the failure of a long lasting peace. The 1993 Oslo agreements signed by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas were ultimately rejected by Palestine’s leaders and Israeli right wingers. Rabin himself was assassinated by an Israeli extremist and the prominent Palestinian academic Edward Said from Columbia University condemned the agreement by referring to it as the Palestinian Versailles.
Today the Palestinian Authority under the same Mahmoud Abbas is seen as a corrupt anachronism, Hamas is seen as a terrorist organization and Israel has veered so much to the right that the prospect of negotiations has moved into the realm of fantasy.
While war is never a desired mode of action there are times when it is justified. St. Augustine’s just war theology refined by St. Thomas Aquinas which many suggest is the intellectual ancestor to the Geneva Convention has essentially three parts. These terms which describe these components and began to appear in the early 20th century are Jus ad bellum which means the right to war,Jus in bello which means conduct during war and Jus post bellum which is conduct after the war.
October 7th was a horrific day for the people of Israel. To call it any else other than a terrorist attack is an intentional dereliction of moral awareness. Even with the overall context of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and de facto control of Gaza, the attack which included kidnappings, rape and beheadings was a horrendous act. Hamas has earned its reputation as a terrorist organization.
In response to October 7th, Israel was justified in its call to destroy Hamas. As a result its initial incursion into Gaza and targeting of Hamas was wholly justified by the precepts of the first component of just war theology namely Jus va bellum. A nation’s right to defend itself is a critical component of international law and paramount to the universal idea of national sovereignty. Nonetheless, the conception of just war theology does not end with the first component.
The problem for Israel began as it entered into the Jus in bello component. From this side of the world there is no doubt that Israel has failed its moral responsibility under the second component of just war theology and international law. Its mission has begun to resemble collective punishment which goes against international law rather than self defense. Unfortunately, the prospects for the third component jus post bellum doesn’t look any better. While the Israeli government has publicly stated that it doesn’t want to occupy Gaza, its actions betray those words.
Unfortunately, Israel has squandered any social capital created as a result of the October 7th terrorist attacks.
Israel in all likelihood will not be able to totally destroy Hamas but its actions have birthed a new population of young Palestinians mainly male who will see their future as exacting revenge on the state of Israel. The inability of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his administration to see this stems from an extreme form of political myopia or even worse their inability to view Palestinians as equal human beings worthy of life. With charges of genocide and protests around the world, at some point one can surmise that the present allies of Israel particularly the United States may begin to see them as more trouble than it’s worth.
The belief that Prime Minister Netanyahu was in many ways responsible for enabling Hamas has led some to question whether he really ignored reports about a possible attack by Hamas or actually welcomed it as a ruse to re-occupy Gaza and perhaps the West Bank. In fact it was Netanyahu who wanted to weaken the Palestinian Authority. With its intrusion into Rafa, the idea of this being simply about Hamas has strained whatever credulity is left in Netanyahu’s administration. It is believed by some that the war against Hamas has taken on a messianic dynamic and perhaps, reflects the Masada syndrome. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Netanyahu is looking for “Armageddon, that will make it possible to expel many of the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
The war unfortunately doesn’t seem to be ending anytime soon with still as of yet unintended consequences in the making. One thing we do know is that the war has spread beyond the original belligerents. As one looks at the attacks on ships in the Red Sea that is clearly a consequence of the war as well as Hezbollah which has launched attacks against Israel.
The question is how can this conflict be resolved once and for all. One of the first steps ways is for a new administration to come to power. The Netanyahu administration stands in the way of any long lasting resolution and therefore the first towards a resolution is replacing the administration. Vice-President Kamala Harris’s meeting with Israeli Cabinet member Benny Ganz a rival of Netanyahu at the White House may actually be the first shot over the bow about where the White House believes the best hopes for Israel be. This along with her call for at least a six week ceasefire is a welcome sign that the United States has become exasperated with the Netanyahu government.
While a two state solution is not the only solution to the conflict it is probably the best. Some have suggested a one state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians having equal rights. Many oppose this however as it would essentially eliminate Israel as a Jewish state.
While President Biden is correct in his call for a two state solution, Israel has placed him in an untenable position by essentially and publicly ignoring his advice. Biden must respond in kind. He should adopt a Dutch Uncle approach by taking the advice of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who has advised Biden to go to Israel speak to the Knesset and tell them in no uncertain terms that if Israel does not change the trajectory of this war the United States will be forced to change its policy towards it. The reality is that despite the rejection by the present Israeli administration of a two state solution, the US is in a position to place great pressure on Israel through its provision of foreign aid and military assistance. Netanyahu’s response that he doesn’t want to create a state that is hostile to Israeli strains credulity. Historically Israel has been surrounded by nations hostile to its existence yet through negotiation primarily through the United States it has created partnerships with nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and will soon include Saudi Arabia. Secondly Palestine is recognized by 139 member states of the United Nation and is also recognized as an observer state in the United Nations.
Israel is risking becoming a pariah state with its war on Hamas which is turning into the removal of Palestinians from Gaza and eventually the West Bank. Jordan recently cancelled its energy for water deal with Israel in response to the war. While Israel enjoys partnerships with various nations in the Middle East it must be remembered that while the governments of these nations prefer these partnerships their populations tend to be against it. While agreements such as the Abraham Accords remain in effect Israel has made it difficult to maintain these partnerships.
The first action the US can take is to refrain from vetoing a vote calling for a cease fire or at least abstain. While the Biden administration in response to the loss of innocent life has recently issued an executive order authorizing a cutoff of military aid to countries that violate international protection of civilians the challenge will be in the enforcement of this directive. The second action that can take place is to create a coalition of Palestinians and Jews who support the two state solution. The recent Michigan primary which Biden won overwhelmingly but nonetheless produced over 100,000 non-committed votes sent a strong message to the Biden administration. Nonetheless that may essentially turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Staying home for the general election will produce an administration that is inherently hostile to them. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s comments about “from the river to the sea” while understandable from an emotional and political perspective unfortunately misses a tremendous opportunity to create a coalition with a critical mass of Jewish Americans who support Palestinian independence through a two state solution. Despite this the White House can still do this and would behoove the administration to send out emissary’s to different parts of the country to organize these partnerships.
Israel is an important ally of the United States and it is not in the geopolitical interest of the US to drive it into the sphere of Russia or China who would surely seek to take advantage of any break in the relationship. In fact Israel has already refused to place sanctions on Russia or send offensive arms to Ukraine despite pressure from the United States.
This is a complex situation that cannot be simplistically reduced to a binary choice. With the present political morass in Washington especially from the GOP and the upcoming presidential election it’s becoming more difficult for the US to speak with one voice. Nonetheless the US along with its partners in the Middle East must work together to bring about a lasting peace.