Gaza: negotiations and deterrence

4 min read EUGENIO GARCIA GASCON 0 comments

EUGENIO GARCIA GASCON

Negotiations to end the Gaza war are proceeding intermittently and it is not clear when they will end or under what conditions. As of this writing, in mid-June, the ball is in Israel's court, where a response to Hamas's most recent approaches is being sought.

The Islamist organization remains entrenched in its demand for an end to the war, and now not only demands that point but also demands international guarantees that Israel will respect it. It is not enough for Hamas that the US is the guarantor, but it seeks other more independent powers, specifically China, Russia and Turkey, to supervise that the Jewish state keeps its word.

That is exactly where much of the difficulty lies in achieving a permanent ceasefire. Benjamin Netanyahu wants it to be simply temporary and reviewable, and not permanent. The prime minister continues to entertain the idea of continuing in office after the cessation of hostilities, and wants to settle the Gaza issue in a way that is definitive and favorable to Israel, so that the surprise attack of 7 October.

One issue Netanyahu is considering is the US elections in November. The prime minister hopes that by the end of the year the superpower will turn around and that Donald Trump will be president. If this happens, it is very likely that Trump will free Netanyahu's hands to expel all or most of the Palestinians from Gaza.

Although his position is apparently weak, Netanyahu intends to survive the adversities. One of the things he must do to achieve this is to stay in power for as long as he can and whatever happens. With more than eight months having passed since the start of the war, he insists that his goal is to end Hamas forever, a goal it is not clear he will achieve.

The only clear and definitive victory would be to expel the Palestinian population from Gaza. Some Israeli ministers have already expressed themselves in this regard, but the problem is that the current administration in Washington has not given it the green light, so the prime minister wants to wait until there is a change of tenant in the White House.

The future of Hamas seems uncertain although it is obvious that it has not suffered a definitive defeat. Completely destroying the structure of the organization will not be achieved unless all or most of the population of Gaza is expelled. In the northern and central areas of the Strip that the army has abandoned, the militiamen have returned and remain the undisputed local authority.

If Netanyahu does not expel most of the population to Egypt, it is very likely that the Islamists, either under the banner of Hamas or under another banner, will once again control the Strip. They have the majority support of the population, and not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, as revealed by surveys carried out periodically.

Despite the widespread destruction, Hamas leader Yahiya Sinwar has not bowed to Israel's demands, and from his remote location he is able to continue setting conditions as if he were the victor. The corrections he has submitted to the latest Israeli proposal indicate that he believes himself capable of keeping Netanyahu in check after all the destruction caused.

Some politicians around Netanyahu recommend that he accept Sinwar's conditions in order to obtain the release of the prisoners held by the Islamists, more than a hundred. They tell him this openly, while adding that if Israel wants to resume the war later, it can find any excuse whenever it sees fit.

That's how things are today, not too clear. Netanyahu has endured pressure to exchange the prisoners for eight months. If he decides to accept Sinwar's conditions, he will most likely head to an early election in which Netanyahu will almost certainly run. If, on the other hand, he rejects Sinwar's conditions, the wear and tear seen in the Israeli army and society will increase, a wear and tear that is beginning to worry numerous leaders.

To this it must be added that some analysts consider that Israel has lost its deterrence capacity, both in the south of Gaza and in the north of the country, on the border with Lebanon. This is a strategic element of the utmost importance for the future of the Jewish state, to the point that some politicians, such as Gadi Eisenkot, openly admit that this is the most critical moment the country has gone through since its founding in 1948.