Boiling the Frog

For much of 2023, the diplomatic breakthrough of the century seemed to be on the cusp of happening. The normalization of relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel would be a major diplomatic victory for Israel, especially Likud (a right-wing party) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but a significant defeat for Iran, whose enemies would formally be united. This all changed on October 7, when the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of Hamas), the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other associated groups launched a surprise invasion and attack of Israeli territory. They committed violent acts against civilians and took hostages, an attack comparable to Pearl Harbor and September 11 in the way that it was perceived and the sheer intelligence blunder it had been. Israel’s immediate response has expectedly been too extreme, angering many countries. Notably, Saudi Arabia immediately moved to postpone negotiations on the agreement and demanded greater concessions from Israel.

The motive of the attack seems somewhat conclusive that it was those seeking to sabotage the Saudi Arabia-Israel normalization agreement, which would hurt both Iran and Palestinians. For the Palestinians, it would destroy any diplomatic pressure left on Israel to resolve their status in the West Bank (especially with Netanyahu’s premiership) mired in unequal treatment, discrimination, mistreatment, and violence by settlers in a regime often compared to apartheid and their status in the Gaza Strip, subject to a land, air, and sea blockade since 2007 due to the rule of Hamas. During their rule, Hamas and its associated groups successfully radicalized many in the Gazan population to see this attack as the last window of their survival.

Obviously, some sort of Israeli military response to Hamas’s actions on October 7 was justified in self-defense by international law with only incidental civilian harm, but not what the response has been since then. The Israeli military response initially began with cutting off humanitarian aid, water, electricity, and internet (though international pressure forced them to scale this down), which are likely illegal under the Geneva Conventions, as they prohibit the collective punishment of a population for the actions of a few, and require essential supplies to be provided by an occupying power, which Israel and Egypt collectively meet the definition of by surrounding Gaza and controlling its imports. Next began the large-scale bombing of the Gaza Strip, particularly the less populated northern part. The extent of the bombings has drawn comparisons to carpet bombings. Legally required warnings were issued to civilians in the area, though they were hampered by a lack of internet and electricity, which gave insufficient time for Palestinians to evacuate. The closed border of Gaza made it especially difficult for the average civilian to leave Gaza. Warnings like that of a road in Gaza were so short of notice that it would be impossible to walk the distance before the bombing was set to start. 

The Hamas government has notably made it hard for civilians to avoid bombing, though. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) also attacked hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and even apartment buildings under the legitimate premise that Hamas weaponry was stored in the buildings to use the civilians as human shields, making them unfortunate military targets, while also not providing a reasonable opportunity for civilians to leave such sites before the attack. In late October, the IDF began its ground invasion of Gaza, despite warnings from experts in the United States Department of Defense that it would be a very risky operation due to the intense nature of urban warfare presented combined with the sheer radicalization of the Gazan population, only increasing by the day due to deaths and injuries among Gazans, which also fulfills Hamas’s desires of garnering increased sympathy for its cause. 

The rhetoric among many Israeli politicians, from the far-right to notably even people on the left, has often consisted of labeling the entire Gazan population as inherently terrorists and therefore legitimate military targets. Combining that with the statements and rhetoric from Cabinet members, such as Likud Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Otzma Yehudit (a far-right party) Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Mafdal (another far-right party) Minister of Finance and de facto ruler of the West Bank Bezalel Smotrich, who are directing the response to the war, have led many to consider the Israeli military response as a pretext for intent to commit a genocide. As a result, many have called for a lasting ceasefire in recent weeks, especially after a temporary six-day-long humanitarian pause in fighting that recently expired, and have used the issue, along with conditioning aid to Israel, to act as international pressure to discourage Israel from continuing its course of action.

There is a middle ground that reconciles the desire to avoid harm to Israeli and Palestinian civilians while removing Hamas and bringing them to justice: a limited, targeted, surgical response to Hamas’s actions, occurring slowly but eventually delivering. Very much like slowly boiling a frog, Hamas would be boiled away into surrender. Instead of large-scale bombings, bombings would occur in slow stages. An IDF invasion would resemble much more of an occupation, holding and neutralizing territory. Explicit military targets, like military bases and command centers, would be targeted first. Israel’s national intelligence agency, Mossad, could also conduct captures and assassinations of Hamas leadership, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or Qatar, decapitating their leadership and weakening them. The IDF could then move on to civilian targets hosting Hamas weaponry. These targets would be taken out one at a time, providing ample room for evacuation. The Israeli and Egyptian border would be opened, with immigration checkpoints allowing the opportunity for refugees to flee safely. Lastly, the humanitarian sites could be targeted only if they are being used as military assets by Hamas, with again a reasonable opportunity for civilians to leave, be treated, and be discharged from the hospital. For these later phases, ground troops would probably be more appropriate. A United Nations coalition could also assist and is more likely to get a warmer reputation from the Gazan population. Steps must also be taken to ensure that displaced Gazans ultimately have somewhere to return to upon the dismantling of Hamas, and a post-Hamas military occupation must focus on the reconstruction of the society and rebuilding of its economy, with the Marshall Plan as a model, to help tame many of the distrustful attitudes Gazans hold towards Israelis and Americans, that will be used as a step towards a permanent and lasting peaceful solution to the conflict. With this, ideally, both war criminals that were part of Hamas and their associated groups and Israeli government ministers should be put on trial eventually for their violations of the laws of war, either in the Hague, Israel/Palestine, or in any other country under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction.

It is ultimately in the best interest of everyone in this conflict to pursue this narrow, targeted approach. For Gazans, it will ensure their safety, allow for the dismantlement of the dictatorial Hamas, and set them up for a peaceful solution to the conflict. For Palestinians as a whole, their brethren in Gaza will be kept rather safe, hopefully forcing an end to their oppressive state in the West Bank and ensuring they get a peaceful solution. For Israelis, Hamas will be dismantled, and the appeal for a Hamas-like entity will be weakened significantly, ensuring their safety, and ultimately, they will be provided a peaceful solution. The Israeli government will revive diplomatic negotiations with Saudi Arabia (due to its requested concessions being delivered) and, eventually, other countries in the Arab and Muslim world, providing diplomatic recognition of their existence in some form, especially given Saudi Arabia’s standing in the Muslim world due as guardians of the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. For the United States, its reputation will be significantly tamed among the Palestinians, its international standing strengthened, Iran weakened, and the incumbent administration boosted.

However, there is clearly a concern that this narrow, targeted approach will be very hard to convince the Israeli government’s right-wing and far-right coalition to adopt. That is very much the case, but international pressure may at least force their hand to some extent. Countries like the United States can move to condition their aid and use the threat of withholding vetoes at the United Nations Security Council to force Israel’s hand. Of course, there is a severe limitation presented by a Republican-led House, but there is enough weakness and instability among Congressional Republicans to where there is the potential for President Biden to force their hand. Pressure from other countries that are American allies may be helpful as well. 

Additionally, Netanyahu is very politically weak at this moment, especially with reports of how terribly the government’s intelligence agencies failed to accurately anticipate the attack despite warnings from the United States, Egypt, and even Mossad itself; reports that his Likud Party wanted Hamas to weaken the cause of a Palestinian state; and despite his reputation as the “Israeli Newt Gingrich,” there is the potential for Netanyahu to be forced to do something or be thrown to the wolves. 

Ultimately, restraining the military response in Gaza and bringing some sort of peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict will require the patience the electoral process requires, an electoral process you can participate in. You can express your thoughts on the conflict to your member of Congress, and if and when you are old enough, help elect the most viable candidates to Congress and the presidency (which includes President Biden) who will support restraint and desire for peace. This electoral battle will not be easy, especially with fierce resistance from groups allied with the Israeli government, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or the Democratic Majority for Israel group, but it ultimately is a battle that must be won if there is a desire to bring peace to the region. The electoral process, regardless of the anemic pace it operates at which drives people to violence like that of Hamas or Kahanism, will ultimately be our friend in ending this conflict once and for all.