Back to Tried Failures: The New Offensive on Gaza

If at first you don’t succeed, failure may be your only option. This is proving very much to be the case with the resumption of savagely lethal strikes on Gaza by the Israeli Air Force on March 19. In a matter of hours, over 400 Palestinians were slaughtered. The resumption of the attacks by Israel terminated a fragile, often qualified cease-fire that had seen the first phase hold, for the most part, through March. Attempts to negotiate the freeing of the surviving Israeli hostages, and further Palestinian prisoners, and concluding the conflict with a lasting ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, however, proved fruitless.

Israel and the United States have justified the resumption of hostilities on Hamas’ reluctance to release more hostages prior to commencing negotiations on ending the war. This consisted of a US proposal in which Hamas would release half the remaining Israeli hostages in return for a seven-week prolongation of the truce, with a nebulous undertaking to launch negotiations over a more durable ceasefire. This did not form the basis of the original ceasefire agreement, though it did lead to Hamas offering to return the bodies of four hostages and the American-Israeli soldier, Edan Alexander. Rather predictably, Israel has also accused Hamas of readying itself for further attacks, though evidence of this is scanty at best.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has always been lukewarm to any notion of a durable ceasefire agreement. “We are committed,” he explained in an interview last June, “to continuing the war after a pause, in order to complete the goal of eliminating Hamas. I’m not willing to give up on that.” On January 18, just as the guns were meant to fall silent, Netanyahu was adamant that Israel reserved “the right to return to war if necessary with the backing of the United States.”

The approach taken by Netanyahu has therefore been one of bombing while simultaneously negotiating with Hamas. It’s a recipe that is idiosyncratic and irreconcilable, suggesting a holding pattern of failure. While the PM promises that “This is just the beginning,” and that, “We will keep fighting to achieve all of the war’s objectives”, it remains questionable how many of these have been achieved. Hamas, however weakened, continues to operate in the Gaza strip. Palestinian civilians continue to be butchered.

For Netanyahu, a sense of crisis is important. Peace would be dangerous for him, allowing the wheels of Israeli justice to conclude legal proceedings against him on charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. War is his reassurance, instability an antidote. Alon Pinkas, former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York, reasoned on Al Jazeera that the new round of attacks on Gaza was a matter of “survival politics” and had “zero military significance [and] no political end.”

Giving him an incentive to resist talks of peace in favour of an annihilatory agenda are also such individuals of the far-right as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. The waspish politician has repeatedly threatened to leave the coalition if further negotiations with Hamas are pursued instead of resuming the war.

Similarly, Itamar Ben-Gvir of Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) and former national security minister has rejoined the coalition government after exiting in protest at the ceasefire agreement in January. This took place despite concerns at his conduct as cabinet minister, notably expressed by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.  

The return of the extreme pro-settler group to the fold prompted a lamentation from Knesset member Naama Lazimi (The Democrats): “It’s a strange world. A faction resigns from the government because lives are being saved, and the same party returns to the government when they are being abandoned.”

Netanyahu’s savouring of a good crisis is also evident in his desire to remove Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, the first instance in Israeli history of a government seeking to fire the head of a security agency. “The prime minister’s expectation of a duty of personal loyalty, the purpose of which contradicts the public interest,” Bar observed in a statement, “is a fundamentally illegitimate expectation. It is contrary to the Shin Bet law and contrary to the patriotic values that guide the Shin Bet and its members.” True to authoritarian form, this effort has been undertaken without the necessary recommendation of the Senior Appointments Advisory Committee. It has also prompted protests across the country.

In Israel, those seeking the release of the hostages are aggrieved. Yet again, their position remains subordinate to the whim and cynicism of Netanyahu. But beyond that, the basis for an even more murderous phase in the conflict against the Palestinians, one encouraged by the United States, has begun.

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969