120 countries support the UN call for an end to the fighting in Gaza. But this would make it impossible to destroy Hamas, which is threatening Israel with further massacres. Is there any way other than war to ensure Israel’s existence? Middle East expert Peter Lintl ntv.de provides an answer.
ntv.de: In a UN resolution, 120 countries are calling for a permanent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Permanent means: an end to hostilities. What would that mean at this point?
Peter Lintl: To understand this, we should first consider an important point: Why are the Israelis waging this war? I think that’s the original question. This war is being waged because it is clear to almost all Israelis: after this monstrous terrorist attack, deliberately carried out with such brutality and violence, there is no other way to ensure that Hamas can never carry out such a massacre again.
What did the attack do to the country?
The State of Israel was founded in 1948 largely against the backdrop of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism in order to be a safe haven for all Jews worldwide. This belief was shattered by the attack. Israel is also a small country. Every Israeli has been affected and injured in some way by the atrocities.
The work colleague of an acquaintance of mine is held hostage by Hamas. Terror seems very close. Do you mean this?
Exactly, that’s what I mean. Many Israelis are grieving and fearful for relatives or friends. The attack also brings back the trauma of the Holocaust. If parts of the world then say that these monstrous attacks are the logical consequence of the occupation and do not condemn the massacre, then the Israelis feel abandoned by the world. They have the feeling that no one sees, no one understands what Hamas has done to the country.
The political scientist Peter Lintl studied and researched in Haifa and Tel Aviv, among other places. He leads a research project on Israeli security policy at the Science and Politics Foundation.
War is Israel’s only possible outcome?
In Israel, the opinion is largely unanimous: such an attack must never be repeated. And it is also clear: the previous strategy of containing Hamas but not destroying it, i.e. dealing with it, has failed. For the Israelis, there is no other option, both emotionally and strategically, than to render Hamas incapable of action. That is what causes this war. That’s the page.
The other is the price the Palestinian people pay for this?
The war is already extremely bloody, with very high death tolls. Initially on the Israeli side, but now also on the Palestinian side. In addition, there are several 100,000 refugees and an impending humanitarian catastrophe. At the same time, this war is extremely difficult for the Israelis to wage. Hamas hides behind its own population and builds its tunnel systems under hospitals and mosques. Hamas is also pricing in these deaths; it knows that such a war will exact a heavy toll in blood and that international opinion will change at some point. The question everyone is now asking is: How many victims should this war cost? When is proportionality no longer present? But how should one answer this question?
120 countries, including EU states such as Spain and France, say with their resolution: Not a single more victim, now! Will this pressure increase?
Certainly, the longer the war lasts, the more pressure Israel will come under internationally.
Why doesn’t the resolution suggest how Israel can neutralize Hamas without war?
Because that was obviously not in the interest of this resolution. Of course, it is of particular importance to draw attention to the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. But it neither cited Hamas’s violent acts nor addressed how there might be a way to remove Hamas from power without war. But there is probably no other option. And Hamas knew that. That’s what she set out to do. The brutality of their attack was a means to lure Israelis into the Gaza Strip. Because the terrorists knew that Israel would have little other option after this terror.
Does that mean the UN resolution requires Israel to stop fighting and thus allow Hamas to exist?
That would mean stopping the fight at this point. It would essentially be a victory for Hamas. At the same time, we have to consider the number of victims in Gaza; Unicef reports hundreds of dead children – clearly non-combatants. The claim by a spokesman for the Israeli army in recent days that all people – up to 300,000 – who are now in the north of the Gaza Strip are themselves responsible for their situation and legitimate military goals should also be viewed very critically. Israel must do everything possible to protect civilians and also allow humanitarian aid. The USA in particular is always in constant dialogue with Israel in this regard.
After the failed fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, it became clear that anyone who goes into a war should know what the future will look like afterwards. Netanyahu’s former security advisor Yakoov Amidror describes it like this: Israel attacks whenever Hamas moves. The border in Gaza is secured by a wide no-man’s land. Otherwise, Israel no longer feels responsible for anything. Gaza should turn to its Egyptian neighbors in all humanitarian matters. Is that conceivable?
The Israeli defense minister divides the war into three phases: first the destruction of terrorist infrastructure, in the second phase the search for hidden Hamas fighters who are hiding somewhere. The third phase would be the establishment of a new security regime that does not involve Hamas, but with which Israel will no longer have anything to do. There are various scenarios that were recently addressed by US Secretary of State Blinken. Perhaps the most likely scenario currently seems to be a kind of transitional regime: international troops, perhaps Arab troops, who would initially control the Gaza Strip and begin reconstruction, but would hand over control to a Palestinian Authority relatively quickly.
What hurdles stand in the way of such a solution?
First, the war would have to be over. The second requirement would be a mandate from the UN Security Council. It is questionable whether this would succeed – with the votes of Russia and China. Thirdly, there absolutely needs to be a political vision for the Palestinians, otherwise it would just be a third-party occupation. Without this vision, no state would send troops, nor would they be accepted by the Palestinians. But you cannot simply hand over political power in Gaza to the Palestinian Authority (PA) immediately. If it came to power in Gaza behind Israeli tanks, it would look like an ally of Israel.
Despite all these hurdles, do you still see a realistic opportunity?
This scenario, a combination of international troops and the PA, is one of the more credible visions. In my opinion, the USA is currently discussing a lot with Israel about exit strategies, future plans, and what a political vision for Gaza could look like. This is very difficult for the Israelis at the moment given that the terrorist attacks are still recent and the trust that demands a political solution has been completely destroyed.
Prime Minister Netanyahu showed a map of the “New Middle East” to the UN in September. On this map, all Palestinian territories were assigned to Israel. The Gaza Strip no longer existed. Can Palestinian independence even be achieved with this government?
Until an emergency government was formed with opposition politician Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s coalition was the most right-wing government ever in Israel. You have to see that. It rejected any political vision for the Palestinians that would have somehow meant independence and Palestinian self-determination. On the other hand, the Israelis do not want to occupy the Gaza Strip. Although this will be very difficult emotionally, and perhaps impossible with this Israeli government, there is little alternative to a political vision. Without this there will be no stable solution for the Gaza Strip.
Frauke Niemeyer spoke to Peter Lintl