By Mel Gurtov
Three Developments That Might Lead to Talks
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented a week or so ago: “We will do to Lebanon what we did to Gaza.”
That arrogant and ugly prediction has come to pass with respect both to the human toll in Lebanon—the destruction of hospitals and fields, the civilian deaths and displacements—and the political aim, which is to expand Israel’s territory and authority. Now, three new developments add to this catastrophic situation.
First, is Israel’s assassination of the Hamas leader and probable orchestrater of the Oct. 7 attack, Yahya Sinwar.
Second, is the US threat, in a letter Oct. 13 to the Israeli government by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, that the Biden administration may have to consider suspending military aid to Israel unless Israel improves food delivery to Gaza within a month. The further US demand is that Israel reaffirm that “there will be no Israeli government policy of forced evacuation of civilians from northern to southern Gaza.”
The third development is the more and more insistent calls for Israel to declare a cease-fire now that Sinwar has been eliminated and its military aims have largely been accomplished.
There have been several moments in this war when it seemed that peace of a sort was at hand—when both Israel and Hamas, through negotiations, had arrived at a point where at least a temporary cease-fire could be declared that would lead to the release of hostages and prisoners, perhaps setting the stage for further positive steps. Are we now again at such a moment? Here’s Thomas Friedman in his Oct. 18 New York Times op-ed:
“It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the death of the Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. It creates the possibility not only of ending the Gaza war, returning Israeli hostages and bringing relief to the people of Gaza. It creates the possibility for the biggest step toward a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians since Oslo, as well as normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia — which means pretty much the entire Muslim world.”
Why Peace Is Not at Hand
Friedman’s is a voice of reason, but I sincerely doubt—and I hope I’m wrong—that it will gain an audience in Tel Aviv or in the Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran circle. The first and most important reason takes us back to Netanyahu’s vengeful strategy, backed by his far-right cabinet members: total victory. He has never wanted to bargain to get back the hostages, he has never regarded Hamas as a legitimate authority in Gaza, and he has never been interested in a cease-fire. When he makes an offer to Hamas, as he did the other day—release all the hostages and Hamas fighters will be free to leave Gaza—he does so fully aware the offer will be rejected.
What Netanyahu wants in Gaza–emptying it of people, in what appears to be a plan to occupy the strip permanently with Jewish settlers—he also wants in the West Bank and perhaps even in southern Lebanon. And as he goes about achieving his objectives, Netanyahu hopes to demonstrate that he is Israel’s indispensable leader.
The second reason for pessimism about peace is that the US threat to suspend arms shipments to Israel lacks all credibility. Why now, and why over Gaza, after many months in which Israel has consistently turned aside US concerns about the humanitarian disaster there?
The IDF is engaged in ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza, and a UN human rights inquiry has determined that “Israel has perpetrated a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system,” which is a war crime. If the Biden administration were serious about Gaza aid, it would have suspended military shipments long ago, or at least this instant—no more making threats or collaborating with Israel on what to strike in Iran, but taking action, in our best interest.
Netanyahu has every reason to scoff at such threats and continue doing what he has been doing in Gaza, which is forced displacement of the Palestinian population. His Likud party actually hosted a gathering recently to encourage Jewish settlers to move into Gaza—as though the party was selling real estate!
A pathway to peace in the Middle East is conceivable—one that would not merely free Israel’s hostages and Hamas’ prisoners, but lead to a permanent cease-fire, formation of a new Palestinian leadership in Gaza, agreement among all the parties on steps toward Palestinian statehood, and normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Tom Friedman’s article provides the details.
But the Netanyahu government stands firmly in the way. As much as Israel would benefit from normal relations with its Arab neighbors, its government values the complete elimination of its enemies more. Compromise is not in Netanyahu’s vocabulary—and as he looks at the election here, he is banking on a Trump victory that would make any sort of compromise unnecessary.
So when Friedman ends his op-ed by saying that this is Netanyahu’s moment to make history, he knows there is little basis for such hope. Give peace a chance? Not a chance.
— Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice , is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at In the Human Interest.
