Jerusalem’s Long War

Over the last year, Israel has decimated Hamas’s regime in the Gaza Strip. The terrorist organisation showed no remorse after its invasion of Israel last October. Of course, the victorious proclamations that followed the massacres in Israeli settlements soon turned to pathetic protestations of victimhood when Benjamin Netanyahu’s government struck back. Over the last year, the IDF has systematically dismantled and routed Hamas’s military capabilities, yet the concern now is what comes next, as Egypt has deployed its military along the Gaza border to prevent any refugees from leaving. This could have left the Israelis in a familiar situation, able to defeat the enemy, yet having to wait for the problem to reemerge once again. The idea of Palestinians being moved to other Islamic countries is considered a faux pas in polite company, so this has never been discussed seriously as an option. Thankfully, Netanyahu’s government—unlike previous conflicts against Hamas—have finally implemented lasting change. They have split the Gaza strip into several zones, which will prevent Islamists from re-arming, whilst allowing food and other commodities through checkpoints.

This policy is shaped by the realisation that Israel’s calculations have now changed. The delusion that they could live next to territory controlled by Hamas has been shattered, and no prime minister who presides over a similar invasion will be forgiven. With this in mind, Netanyahu’s government voted in late August to keep troops in the Philadelphi corridor, a narrow strip of land 100 yards wide and nine miles long, which runs parallel to the Egyptian border. This will allow a robust control of the border areas and make tunnelling very difficult for any remaining militants.

Yet, for Israel, even this minor decision elicited astonishing pushback from its allies, as if strategic thinking is no longer a justifiable motive for decision making, and that Gaza must not be policed at all, even if failing to do so will result in another conflict. Similar condemnation was also widespread during operations in Rafah, where the back-and-forth over how, why, and when to assault the stronghold wasted months of political capital, just so Western leaders could appease their liberal voters back home. This is certainly not the way to conduct a war, and Ukraine doesn’t suffer these sorts of mental gymnastics in London or Washington.

This highlights the hypocrisy of the political Left in the West, which obsesses over Palestinian civilians, but not the civilians undoubtedly killed in other wars. Is this singling out caused by antisemitism, delusion, or a mixture of both? The anti-Israel protests on American college campuses—which quickly spread to Britain—were but one example of this behaviour. When contrasting this to the radio silence on the brutal war in Sudan, the only possible conclusion is that Israel is held to a different standard than other nations. Otherwise, why are there no protests for the tens of thousands killed around Khartoum and Darfur? There is definitely a ridiculous double standard with regard to the Jewish state during times of war. This has been demonstrated (especially in British media) since at least 2006, when Hezbollah crossed the border and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. 

Israel shouldn’t be subject to any special restrictions on conducting military operations within normal legal parameters, especially when fighting Islamist terror organisations. The media’s hostility is particularly baffling when considering the precision strikes being used—something that is definitely not occuring in other conflicts. In the future, and possibly the very near future, Israel may have to take out Iran’s nuclear program if the latter enriches enough uranium to build a bomb. This would cause a reaction far greater than anything witnessed in the Middle East over the last year, and would require a much higher level of operations. Yet the message from America and Europe, especially the media, is that Jerusalem must fight with one arm tied behind its back. There are always calls for pauses in operations or temporary ceasefires, both of which only benefit Israel’s enemies. Why is this approach considered sensible in Western capitals?

There is also a legal angle. In May, Norway and several other European states decided to recognise Palestinian statehood at the exact time when battles in Rafah were heating up. And the International Criminal Court also indicted both Hamas and members of Israel’s security cabinet (Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant) as well. The court is based in Brussels, and its decision—to equate Hamas’s leadership (who launched an invasion) with Israel’s government (who defended against it)—shows a remarkable lack of judgement. This underlines the left-leaning bias of the court, and the obsession they have with undermining Israel.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that such rulings have come about, as the signs have been there for years within left-leaning politics, especially during Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader of Britain’s Labour Party. And his successor Keir Starmer has inherited a party where a large swathe of the members—including many MPs—hold very strong Palestinian sympathies. Considering that Britain supplies arms to the Jewish state (£42 million worth in 2022) and has a seat on the UN Security Council, it’s no small issue. Starmer’s government recently cut 10% of arms export licences to Israel, and I suspect this is a sign of things to come. Cutting licences to an ally whilst they are winning a war sends out a strange signal, and once again shows the confused mindset of the political class. This is all the more ridiculous when UN and Palestinian aid hasn’t been cut, despite weapons and logistics being found in the former’s facilities, which were placed there by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The double standard is ever-present.

Hamas has somewhat faded from the news in recent weeks, replaced in the headlines by Hezbollah, the other (much more formidable) servant of Iran. Unlike in 2006, Israel has conducted a much smarter campaign. They eliminated large swathes of the organisation’s leadership with airstrikes and targeted electronic warfare, well before any ground incursion began. It’s clear now that the long-term goal—allowing Israelis to return safely home—is only possible if Hezbollah are removed from Lebanon. This would significantly reduce the threat of rocket attacks and Tehran’s grip on the country and go a long way towards preventing another war in the future. 

This raises the possibility of Israel creating a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. It is something that’s been widely discussed in Israeli media, and it would prevent a successor organisation from taking Hezbollah’s place in the border regions. It would also be a reversal of the withdrawal conducted in 2000, a move which was praised by the UN, but which allowed Hezbollah to greatly expand its reach. Whatever happens, the political calculations for Israel’s politicians have changed, and they will do anything to avoid a repeat of October 7, 2023. What’s clear is that a strong, targeted campaign can easily vanquish these Islamists when conducted properly, whilst at the same time provoking only a limited Iranian response. 

The problem is that Western politicians (apart from a few notable exceptions) will complain about any change to the status quo. Yet things must change, because the pre-war conditions in the region are not viable. Islamists must be completely removed from Israel’s borders, or warfare will continue indefinitely. With Hamas defeated and Hezbollah pushed back, some will consider this job done, but other similar groups will take their place unless there is a solution to the vacuum left behind. And then there’s the task of defeating the Houthis and restoring international shipping in the Red Sea. Will any nation step up? Unfortunately, many leaders don’t take as much of an interest in foreign affairs as they once did, and they certainly don’t have the resolve needed. We’re all worse off as a result.

However, whether they take an interest or not doesn’t stop events from playing out. Iran had five major pillars in the Middle East until last year, consisting of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Syrian government, and Shia militias in Iraq. The first has been obliterated, and the second is currently being pushed back after its leadership were decimated in September. Yet the third is still targeting international shipping in the Red Sea, leading to a 66% drop in traffic. The West’s airstrikes have had little effect. The reality is that the region is still firmly in the grip of conflict, and that could spread if President Assad in Syria decided to get involved, or if Iran launches a prolonged attack on Israel. There is no question that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has the capability to deal with such escalation. The problem is whether they are granted the political flexibility needed to ensure none of this happens again. There is no guarantee of such an outcome, as the Biden administration seems occupied by the election and is riddled with mismanagement.

Netanyahu’s cabinet has moved in a pragmatic direction anyway, while an enraged public continues to bite at their heels. Considering the desecrated bodies of dead hostages recovered in recent months, the government’s actions are no surprise whatsoever. The reality is that Israel’s troops will probably remain in Gaza indefinitely, acting as a police force as they do in the West Bank. Meanwhile, southern Lebanon will be cleared of Hezbollah, with the question of how to prevent Islamists returning yet to be decided. What’s clear, though, is that the Holy Land will never be the same again. Hopefully, its future will be free of terrorists.