The war in Gaza is nearing its first anniversary with no sign of hope for containing this chaotic conflict. Alarmingly, the justifications for escalating the war have multiplied, overshadowing the reasons for its cessation, to the extent that the entire region is at risk of descending into a broader regional conflict.
It is certain that the longer the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip continues, the more inevitable the expansion of the conflict becomes. The actual escalation began with the fall of a missile in the village of Majdal Shams in the occupied Golan Heights, resulting in the deaths of twelve Druze children. Israel attributed this incident to Hezbollah, which further intensified the situation on the northern front. Just days prior, a Houthi drone targeted Tel Aviv, prompting an Israeli response that involved bombing the port of Hodeidah. Israeli military leaders regarded this as a significant development that marked a turning point in the war.
Iran currently serves as a pivotal player in any conflict within the Middle East, steadfastly pursuing its agenda in the region through the “Unity of Fronts” strategy, which is orchestrated by its militias in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. This approach is further complemented by comprehensive coordination with elements of the Islamic resistance in Gaza and the surrounding area. Tehran deliberately emphasizes this coordination, both politically and in the media, as evidenced by the recent speech of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, which at times resonated with and mirrored the rhetoric of Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the leader of Ansar Allah. Consequently, it is challenging to overlook the connection between the Israeli military’s bombardment of Hodeidah and its simultaneous strikes on weapon depots belonging to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
However, does this configuration or these fronts have a genuine impact on the developments in the region? Actually, this question necessitates extensive temporal reviews. The Middle East, in its political context, has witnessed unprecedented wars and regional and international conflicts since the end of World War II. This began with the Suez Crisis in 1956, followed by the Arab-Israeli wars, the conflict in Lebanon, and the struggle in Yemen, which coincided with the Iran-Iraq War. Subsequently, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait occurred, leading to the American invasion of Iraq, which paved the way for what are termed fourth and fifth-generation wars, exemplified by the uprisings known as the Arab Spring. This period has resulted in countries such as Libya and Syria being classified among those experiencing civil wars, alongside Sudan, which has recently joined this list.
I mean that the situation before the term “unit of squares” was not optimistic; rather, it can be argued that the magnitude of regional conflicts and divisions has given rise to such terminology to address the current circumstances by the interests and agendas of states. While the aforementioned does not justify the acceptance of Iran’s insidious agenda, which has further obscured the regional landscape, the reality is more complex than it appears. Reducing it solely to the events of October 7th is an unfair simplification that overlooks the true causes of this intricate crisis. Considering the extent of the damage resulting from this regional conflict, it is essential to remember that the unique characteristics of the Middle East are reflected in the political framework shaped by historical events over the centuries, where “politics is the horse that pulls the economic cart,” not the other way around.
The aforementioned points underscore that we are confronted with obstacles and challenges that necessitate a fresh perspective, distinct from the political narratives we have experienced over the past eight decades. These challenges are becoming increasingly complex and difficult each day. For instance, the Iranian proxies established through the “unity of arenas” will not remain indefinitely beholden to the directives from Tehran.
Shortly, the emerging interests of some of these proxies may intersect with those of their primary benefactor, potentially leading to conflicts. This represents one of the intricate equations of warfare in the region, which cannot be understood without considering its strong connections to the historical conflicts and future dynamics of the area.
Additionally, Hamas is urged to transform its approach to the Palestinian issue. Any concession it makes to Israel, even if it leads to a cessation of hostilities, suggests an intention to negotiate a deal similar to previous agreements to ensure its survival in the aftermath. This, however, must be accompanied by concessions within the Palestinian arena or a new interpretation of the Palestinian realities. This is the benchmark for assessing Hamas’s willingness to evolve into a truly national Palestinian movement.
Currently, no substantial indicators are pointing in this direction, unless the recent “Beijing Declaration” among Palestinian factions signifies a step forward. However, past reconciliation attempts between Fatah and Hamas do not inspire much optimism regarding the success of the current endeavor, with the notable difference that China is now invested in the success of the agreement as it serves as a test for its diplomacy.
This situation adds complexity to the ongoing conflict in the region, especially since the current Israeli mindset rejects both Hamas and the authority in Gaza post-conflict. Israel has become a prisoner of extremism, rendering it a greater threat to itself and the region. The existential justifications it provides for the current war are, in reality, merely reflections of the extreme impulses within its political and social spheres.
Nine months have passed since the most devastating war in the Gaza Strip. The emerging results indicate that Hamas’s conflict with Israel has not eliminated its struggle with the Palestinian Authority, although historically and in principle, both parties can be held accountable for this discord. Currently, Hamas bears the primary responsibility for the ongoing Palestinian division, as it is the main Palestinian entity engaged in the conflict in Gaza. While Israel is indeed responsible for the significant loss of Palestinian lives, Hamas’s political and moral obligation towards the Palestinian cause necessitates the pursuit of political solutions to halt the war. This means that its negotiation objectives should focus on the political survival of the Palestinian people rather than its continuation, in addition to safeguarding their lives.
However, its political and moral accountability is tied to the implications of its existence in the “day after” the war, should it remain unchanged, as this survival would signify not only a defeat for Israel but also for the Palestinian Authority. This does not imply that Hamas is solely responsible for obstructing negotiations or that Israel is desperately seeking a ceasefire. The situation is not that straightforward; rather, it is expected that Hamas should be more invested than anyone else, including Israel or any regional power involved in the conflict, in ending the war, even if this requires significant concessions. These concessions involve paving the way for the resolution of the Palestinian division and unifying the Palestinian political vision, thereby enabling Palestinians to advocate for their cause on both regional and international platforms. This is a central issue in all ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and its resolution fundamentally relies on a political decision rather than a military one.
Dr Hatem Sadek – Professor at Helwan University
