FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Ifthat Israel's goal is an expanded state, then the military objective is to clear Gaza, level the infrastructure, create a humanitarian crisis, and force the Palestinians to leave Gaza.
The statement of the Israeli ambassador to Great Britain that there will not be a Palestinian state and that Israel does not believe in solving the conflict with the creation of two states has shocked public opinion not only in Britain but also in America.
Although it has been clear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government did not agree to such a post-war deal, this is the first time it has been so openly stated.
But what does this mean for war?
After many decades of conflict, the West (in particular the US and Great Britain) believes that a two-state solution is the only possible way to ensure a lasting peace.
Despite the enormous challenges resulting from entrenched and polarized positions, in the 1990s Yasser Arafat (head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO) and Yitzhak Rabin (then Israeli prime minister) signed the Oslo Accords—with an agreement reached by the then American president, Clinton.
The Oslo process began after secret negotiations in Oslo, Norway, resulting in the recognition of Israel by the PLO and Israel's recognition of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and as a partner in bilateral negotiations.
In the proposed two-state solution, the West Bank and Gaza would be under Palestinian rule and the rest would form the Israeli state. Although no final solution was agreed upon, all sides were converging on some form of a two-state solution, and in 2017 Hamas also suggested that this could be a basis for negotiations.
Now that Israel is rejecting this option, what does this mean for their military strategy in Gaza?
Military strategy is directly related to political objectives.
If a two-state solution represented Israel's political objective, their military campaign would target Hamas but preserve Gaza's infrastructure and minimize Palestinian casualties. However, if the political ambition is different, this calls for a very different military campaign.
If Israel's goal is an expanded state, then the military objective is to clear Gaza, level the infrastructure, create a humanitarian crisis, and force the Palestinians to leave Gaza.
It is increasingly clear that despite Israel's previous diplomatic negotiations, their objective is not limited to "solving the Hamas problem".
Great Britain wants the creation of two states
The military campaign required for an expanded Israeli ambition in Gaza would probably take months, not weeks, with major implications for Palestinian residents and the growing humanitarian crisis.
This also puts the US and the UK in a very difficult position. The US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed a ceasefire to allow Israel to "finish the job".
The West has sharply criticized Russia for invading Ukraine, arguing that Ukraine has the right to self-determination. So how would the US and UK justify supporting Israel if it emerged that it had planned a similar strategy in Gaza?
Signs of US-Israel rift over Gaza
If, despite diplomatic rhetoric to the contrary, Israel's post-October 7 strategy was always to subjugate Gaza into an expanded Israeli state, this will have significant international consequences.
Israel has often said that it does not seek to occupy Gaza after this war.
It would also have profound implications for US and UK diplomatic relations with the Arab world. /Adapted Pamphlet from Sky News
Lini një Përgjigje