There have been many junctures that have been defined as milestones in the fight that began when Hamas militants rushed through the $1bn barrier built by Israel near Gaza on 7 October to slay more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and seize another 251. The casualty toll resulting from Israel’s offensive in Gaza last week surpassed 40,000, according to Palestinian officials. The number does not distinguish between combatants and civilians but about two-thirds of those fully specified are women and children. Then there are those still beneath the rubble, who may total 10,000.
Israel expressed its forces have extinguished 14,000 Hamas operatives and blames Hamas for using the civilian population of Gaza as a human guard. The Israeli military gave evacuation orders to tens of thousands of individuals living in the “safe humanitarian zone” it had established, saying rockets had been released from the area. The identification of a polio patient in Gaza highlights the depth of an entirely man-made humanitarian catastrophe.
Despite our fatigue when told we have reached yet another crucial moment in the conflict, this weekend is certainly a perilous moment, as British foreign secretary David Lammy and Stéphane Séjourné, his French companion, report in the Observer today.
“Hostages taken by Hamas terrorists remain in chains… Battling between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah has amplified. Iranian threats of additional escalation mean the risks of a full-scale regional war are rising,” they state, describing a “destructive process of violence”. Both ministers call for a truce in Gaza and call on Iran and Israel to evade further escalation. Such calls have often been pushed, and equally often been overlooked. One reason for this is that the usage of violence gives policymakers the importance of controlling events. In reality, this is a fantasy.
The bloody Hamas episode last year had multiple purposes, some of which are still vague. Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas commander who was the founder of the operation, believed that it would encourage other militant groups, such as Hezbollah, to undertake offensives and that Israel would be paralysed by the number of prisoners being held. He was mistaken, and though Sinwar has affected the course of occasions since, he has not controlled them.
Israel’s killing of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran last month is another instance. Killing the political head of Hamas was part of an exact Israeli effort to assassinate the group’s top echelons but fitted other objectives: to increase domestic morale, rally backing for an unpopular prime minister and regain ambition in the war. But Israel now has restricted control over what happens next. The conclusion over whether and how to punish Iran. Some in Tehran are drawn to meet violence with greater brutality. Conservatives claim that Israel has to suffer outcomes or will be emboldened.
In April, Iran reacted to an Israeli strike in Damascus that extinguished two of its generals with a carefully calibrated takeoff of hundreds of missiles and drones targeted at mostly unpopulated areas or military headquarters. This time, revenge that causes more damage would likely lead to an all-out battle. Iranian decision-makers would have little influence on subsequent occasions, with potentially horrendous consequences for their own country and the region.
