The Israel-Hamas Conflict: Why Netanyahu does not want the war to end

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, which has escalated dramatically since the events of October 7, 2023, raises profound questions about the nature of the conflict, its broader implications, and the international response. Here’s an exploration into these complex issues:

Why Israel’s Actions Extend Beyond Hamas:

• Security Perimeter: Israel’s military engagements aren’t confined to Gaza due to security concerns that include threats from Hezbollah in Lebanon, occasional skirmishes in Syria, and maintaining control over the West Bank. These actions are framed within the context of national defense, aiming to prevent attacks from multiple fronts.
• Occupation and Control: The conflict’s scope includes the broader issue of control over territories. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, remains central due to Israeli settlements, which are considered illegal under international law but are defended by Israel for security and historical reasons.
• Netanyahu’s Policies: Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has been criticized for policies that indirectly exacerbate Palestinian living conditions, like settlement expansion, which undermines the viability of a Palestinian state.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s stance on continuing the conflict in Gaza can be understood through several lenses, based on the information available up to September 2024:

1. Political Survival and Coalition Dynamics: Netanyahu leads a coalition government that includes far-right parties whose support is crucial for his political survival. These parties advocate for policies that directly benefit from a state of conflict, such as expanding settlements or maintaining a hardline stance against any concessions to Palestinians. Ending the war might not only weaken his coalition but could also lead to his political downfall if he’s seen as failing to secure Israel’s interests or if his coalition partners withdraw support.
2. Security and Hostage Situation: Netanyahu has argued that continuing military pressure on Hamas is necessary for negotiating the release of hostages. His government’s position is that military action provides leverage in negotiations, suggesting that ending the war without securing the hostages’ release could be politically untenable and seen as a failure.
3. Historical and Ideological Reasons: Netanyahu has long been associated with a vision of Greater Israel, where security is paramount, and concessions to Palestinians are minimal. Ending the war without achieving what his supporters might consider a victory could be seen as betraying this ideology, potentially alienating his voter base.
4. International and Domestic Pressure Management: While there’s international pressure to end the conflict, Netanyahu might perceive that continuing the war could shift the narrative from internal judicial reforms and corruption allegations to national security, where he traditionally enjoys more support. This could be a strategy to manage both domestic and international narratives in his favor.
5. Lack of Viable Peace Option: From Netanyahu’s perspective, there might not be a clear, acceptable peace option on the table. The complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means that any ceasefire or peace deal could be seen as risky or insufficient in addressing Israel’s security concerns or the broader ideological goals of his coalition.
6. Public Sentiment and Media Influence: Public opinion in Israel, especially among Netanyahu’s voter base, might still favor a hardline approach. The control over media narratives and public sentiment through continuous conflict coverage could be seen as maintaining a state of emergency, which historically has rallied support around security issues.

The combination of these factors suggests that Netanyahu’s reluctance to end the war is deeply intertwined with political strategy, ideological commitment, and the complex dynamics of Israeli politics. However, this analysis also reflects the contentious nature of the conflict, where different stakeholders have vastly different interpretations of what peace, security, or victory looks like.

The Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza:

• Blockade and Its Effects: Gaza’s blockade, intensified after Hamas took control, has led to a dire humanitarian situation, including shortages of essential supplies. This blockade, while aimed at security, has contributed to famine, disease outbreaks, and general health deterioration.
• Casualties and Displacement: The conflict has resulted in significant casualties and displacement, with over 33,000 Palestinians reported killed and nearly the entire population of Gaza displaced, highlighting a severe humanitarian crisis.

Global Desensitization to Violence:

• Media and Information Overload: Continuous coverage of conflicts can lead to desensitization or fatigue among global audiences, where the scale of tragedy becomes normalized or overlooked due to other global crises or information overload.
• Political Polarization: The portrayal of the conflict often splits along political lines, leading to a lack of unified global action or empathy. This polarization complicates international responses, with some viewing Israel’s actions as self-defense and others as oppression.

The Holy Land’s Paradox:

• Religious and Historical Significance: The conflict’s location in a land revered by multiple faiths adds a layer of complexity. The intertwining of religious, national, and ethnic identities fuels both the conflict’s intensity and its global interest, yet also complicates peace efforts due to deeply held beliefs and historical claims.
• Cycle of Violence: The conflict perpetuates a cycle where violence begets violence, with each side’s actions often seen as justification for retaliation, leading to continuous escalation rather than de-escalation.

Conclusion:

The Israel-Hamas conflict, while rooted in the immediate goal of defeating Hamas, encompasses broader geopolitical, security, and humanitarian dimensions. Netanyahu’s policies, the blockade of Gaza, and the global community’s response or lack thereof, paint a picture of a conflict deeply embedded in historical grievances, current political strategies, and the tragic human cost, especially to children. The Holy Land’s entanglement in violence and hate reflects not just a regional issue but a global failure in fostering peace and understanding in one of the world’s most historically significant regions.