Is it prudent for a militia to put their non-combatant compatriots in harm’s way by challenging the might of one of the most efficient and well-equipped armies in the world — one that has the record of defeating all the standing armies of neighbouring countries at one time or another? Isn’t it futile to dream of a modern-day David getting rid of a Goliath in one fell swoop? Hasn’t Hamas committed a blunder for which the innocent and civilian Palestinians will pay too steep a price?
Questions of strategy and consequence
These were the questions that were bothering me on October 7 when news spread about how the Gaza Strip-based militant group had sent hundreds of fighters and thousands of ‘home-made’ missiles into the neighbouring Israeli territories to cause death and destruction there. One was worried then and one was perturbed until a few days ago. After all, Israeli forces had by then snuffed life out of more than 13,000 innocent and civilian Palestinians in response to the 1,200 Israelis killed by Hamas last month.
Thousands of Palestinians had been rendered homeless as Israeli air strikes had laid waste to thousands of apartment blocks and buildings in the occupied Strip. And the Israeli ground troops had managed to encircle the Gaza City, where they planned to engage the Palestinian militants in a ‘fight to the finish’. From afar it seemed to be a lost cause as Western media personnel, most of them embedded with Israeli troops, were just reporting death and destruction on the Palestinian side.
Ceasefire negotiations and fragile truce
But then came the news of a deal between the two sides under which they are to cease hostilities for four days to exchange about 200 prisoners, including 50 Israelis taken hostage on Oct 7 by Hamas fighters. The truce is proposed to be extended by one day for each additional batch of ten hostages released. (Only women and children are to be released under the deal.)
Ominously, however, the Times of Israel has said that once the prisoners have been swapped by the two sides “Israel’s campaign to destroy Hamas in Gaza is to resume”. This means that the ceasefire is to be a temporary one.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stated objective of having the Strip invaded by ground troops, in addition to having his fighter jets pound every inch of the occupied territory, is to dismantle the infrastructure controlled by the Palestinian resistance movement there, thus silencing the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad for all times to come. He also declared that his government would not stop its military operations before removing Hamas from the scene completely and expressed the resolve to never hold negotiations with Hamas.
As it has turned out, however, not only has his government been forced to agree to stop its military operations, albeit temporarily, but also has had to hold negotiations with Hamas, although through mediators. This can be described as a notable success achieved by Hamas.
Another coup pulled off by the Arab resistance groups through the unequal battle started by them is the revival of the Palestinian question, which was in danger of being consigned to the backburner for all times to come after Israel’s agreements with all the Arab countries of importance. This has been acknowledged by the BBC’s International Editor Jeremy Bowen in his article titled “Five new realities after four weeks of Israel-Gaza war”.
Bowen writes: “It is also clear that the old status quo has been smashed. It was unpleasant and dangerous, but it seemed to have a certain grimly-familiar stability. Since the end of the last Palestinian uprising around 2005 a pattern has emerged that Netanyahu believed could be sustained indefinitely. That was a dangerous illusion, for all concerned — Palestinians as well as Israelis.”
After the October 7 attack and subsequent Israeli military operations in Gaza, the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli groups and individuals have also become more vocal in criticising the brutal Zionist regime. The global opinion may even have turned in favour of the Palestinians for good, at least at the level of the masses if not at the governmental and diplomatic level.
Due to a perceptible change in public opinion we are now witnessing some Jewish academics and writers as openly criticising Israeli policies and practices. Prominent among such scholars are Gideon Levy, Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein.
Let’s turn now to the timing of the unprecedented Hamas attack, which has been described by many commentators as one of the most successful military operations ever conducted against the state of Israel. The Hamas termed the attack “Al-Aqsa Flood”. Some Western and pro-Israel analysts, however, characterised the onslaught as “Israel’s 9/11”, thereby suggesting that it merits a response as ferocious and swift as that given after the razing of the World Trade Centre in New York more than two decades ago.
Unity amidst deep divisions
Call it by whatever name you like, but the Hamas attack came at a time of widening schisms and divisions in Israeli domestic politics. Prior to the attack tens of thousands of Israelis, including soldiers, were taking part in weekly protests against Netanyahu’s plans for sweeping judicial changes aimed at weakening the Supreme Court.
According to outspoken Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, who has written extensively against Zionists including a book titled “Ten myths about Israel”, the Israeli society was until October 6 presenting the picture of a house divided. In the words of Mr Pappe, on one side of the divide was a government which was bent upon imposing a “Messianic and religious type of rule” on the people of Israel and on the other was a political movement that wanted to preserve democracy as well as secularism.
The opening sentences of an article posted on the website of NBC News on November 3 read: “Rocked by Hamas’ horrific attack, Israel’s government and military have projected a united front in the weeks since the country launched its offensive in the Gaza Strip. But that front was built on deep divisions within Israel, the fissures of which are beginning to resurface.”
The same article quoted an Israeli soldier called Yiftach Golov (who works as a spokesperson for an organisation of reservists belonging to various military units protesting against the planned judicial changes) as saying he was among 10,000 personnel who had signed a declaration in July that they would not respond to a call to duty in case the objectionable piece of legislation was adopted “because they didn’t want to serve a dictator.” After the start of the latest conflict, however, they have had to turn their attention to the war in Gaza.
It’s clear, therefore, that before October 7 the Israeli society was deeply divided; and it was presenting the image of weakness. This in great part could have persuaded the Hamas leadership to give the nod for an all-out attack on the first Saturday of last month.
Perfect timing
The talk of an impending peace agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel was surely the second compelling reason why the Sunni militant orgnisation backed by Iran chose to launch the attack on October 7. Any attack, no matter how big, that came after the Jewish state had closed a deal with the most influential Arab country on the planet would have seemed “too little, too late”. Incidentally, the Hamas attack has put paid to the possibility of a quick Israeli-Saudi pact.
In view of the above facts one feels that the timing of the Hamas attack was spot-on. As it turned out their fighters proceeded to implement their battle plans like clockwork on D-Day. As per their plans, they even managed to take about 240 hostages with them back to the Gaza Strip in the limited time available to them.
But then the Palestinians’ successes came to an abrupt halt because they didn’t have the aircraft, tanks, or even steady supplies of reasonably efficient anti-aircraft and anti-tank weaponry with which they could stop the bombing of Israeli fighter jets and block attempts by Israeli troops to invade the occupied Strip.
Palestine back on the global stage
In the six weeks since the start of the war they have had to brave one atrocity after another as the world has looked on in silence. It’s obvious that they are paying the price of thrusting the seemingly intractable Palestinian question back into the spotlight, to the anger and annoyance of Israel and its Western allies.
Another issue that needs to be addressed here is the manner in which the Hamas men carried out raids into Israeli houses, including those located in kibbutzim, killed people there and took hostages. Western and pro-Israel media have understandably raised a hue and cry over this. But what they conveniently forget whenever such incidents take place is discussed below.
Roots of conflict
Arab people have been living in Palestine since more than 2,000 years but till date they have not been assigned any territory over which they may exercise full sovereignty. In 1947, the percentage of Arabs living in Palestine stood at 61 per cent and yet under a lopsided UN-supervised process they were offered only 45 per cent of their land, which option they rightly rejected. On the other hand, the Jews, whose percentage of population was only 30 per cent then, were offered 55 per cent of the land!
What’s shameful about the way Israel was created is that the Palestinians were never asked to give their opinion over the future of their land or even if they were willing to give up a part of it so that about 500,000 Jewish immigrants could be settled permanently there. Under the Mandate System of the League of Nations, which authorised Great Britain to rule over Palestine between 1922 and 1948, Palestinians were supposed to be involved in any process aimed at determining the future of lands where they lived. However, nothing of the sort was allowed to happen.
Also, under the notorious Balfour Declaration of 1917, which is rightly considered to be at the root of all evil, the British government had actually vowed to help the Zionist Organisation create a “home for the Jews” in Palestine a full five years before assuming control of the strife-torn region under the above Mandate System. This allowed Great Britain to help the Jews make preparations for the creation of a country of their own in Palestine.
In view of the above facts, Palestinians are justified in continuing to fight for self-rule and even independence. There are several UN that allow them to mount efforts to resist illegal occupation of their lands. However, they should abide by the international laws while launching efforts in this regard.
Palestine’s balancing act
Having said that, it’s absolutely heart-wrenching to see Palestinians continuing to render untold sacrifices more than seven decades after their homeland was usurped by Zionists in connivance with the British in 1948. What’s even more tragic, nobody can be sure how many more sacrifices they will have to render before they will achieve their goal of self-rule.
A toll on lives
Since the start of the latest Hamas-Israel war alone they have lost upwards of 14,000 people, most of them women and children. The fatalities in full-fledged wars between two standing armies is often lower than that figure. Al Jazeera recently quoted the UN officials as saying that 10,000 civilians have been killed in Ukraine following the invasion of the country by Russia in February last year. This only shows how brutal the Israeli authorities have been during the ongoing conflict in Gaza and how “efficient and fast” in ending the lives of innocent Palestinians.
Hopes and challenges
What’s remarkable, however, is that despite the immeasurable atrocities they have had to face over the decades the Palestinians have managed to keep the standard of resistance aloft for no less than a century. Let’s hope and pray that they achieve their goals sooner than later.
Nizamuddin Siddiqui is an author who teaches journalism at the Hamdard University, Karachi
All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the writer