An article in the American magazine Foreign Affairs asked about the reasons that require Washington to work to curb the “military campaign” that Israel is currently waging in the Gaza Strip, and to preserve the path leading to peace.

Although the author of the article - American diplomat Richard Haass - shows understanding of Israel's desire to completely eliminate the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), striving to achieve this goal does not mean that it is the ideal or desirable method. He goes on to say that Israel's clear strategy is flawed in terms of both ends and means.

He describes Hamas as a network, movement, and ideology as much as it is an organization, explaining that its leadership can be killed, but the entity or something similar will remain in place, and that there is evidence that Israel is preparing for a large-scale ground invasion, which puts Washington in a difficult position, according to Haass, honorary president of the Council. Foreign relations in Washington.

Revenge

He says that the administration of US President Joe Biden is right to support what he calls Israel's right to revenge, but it must still try to formulate what the "revenge" process will look like.

In his opinion, the United States cannot force Israel to abandon a major ground invasion or reduce it shortly after launching it, but American policymakers can and should try.

The United States' case for formulating an Israeli response to the crisis and its repercussions depends not only on the quality of the advice - "even if it is harsh" - but on what friends owe to each other.

The American diplomat confirms that the United States has interests in the Middle East and beyond, which will not be served by any Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza, nor long-term Israeli policies that do not give hope to the Palestinians who renounce violence, he said.

It is true that such goals will not lead to easy talks and policies, but the alternative - a broader war and the continuation of the unsustainable status quo indefinitely - will be "much more difficult and more dangerous."

Risks of ground attack

Haass warns that trying to eliminate Hamas would require a massive attack in a densely populated urban environment, which would be costly for Israel in that it would lead to civilian casualties, which would generate support for Hamas among Palestinians.

Then, the use of overwhelming force against Gaza will in turn spark international protests, disrupt normalization with Arab governments, and halt Israel’s existing relations with its Arab neighbors or perhaps lead to their cancellation, according to the author of the article’s belief.

Even if Israel manages to crush Hamas, what will happen next? asks the American diplomat, who confirms that there is no alternative authority available to replace it, adding that the Palestinian National Authority lacks legitimacy, capacity, and standing in Gaza.

There is no Arab government prepared to intervene and bear responsibility on behalf of the Gaza Strip, according to the assessment of the honorary president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ground invasion alternative

There is - in Haass's view - another option, which is to avoid the invasion and occupation of Gaza, and replace it with strikes targeting Hamas leaders and fighters, which would undermine Hamas' military capabilities.

Israel - and the opinion is still up to the author - must rebuild its military capabilities along its borders with the Gaza Strip so that it can restore its deterrent power and reduce the possibility of launching “terrorist” attacks in the future.

Perhaps a large, prolonged military operation could lead to the outbreak of a broader regional war, sparked by either a decision by Lebanese Hezbollah to fire missiles at Israel, or a spontaneous outbreak of “violence” in the West Bank.

Both the United States and Israel should want to avoid any outcome that would put Tel Aviv under pressure to reach a ceasefire, according to the Foreign Affairs article.

If the dust of war settles, sustained American diplomacy will be needed to “resuscitate” the two-state solution, Haass explains.

Source: Foreign Policy