Middle East: Israel's ground offensive delayed?
Israel's ground offensive in the Gaza Strip, which has been in preparation for two weeks and announced several times, continues to be delayed. France's President Macron has now proposed that the international military coalition against Islamic State, which was founded almost a decade ago, should also fight Hamas. A look at Europe's opinion sections underlines how complex the decision is for Israel.
Time for far-sighted and coordinated action
For Le Monde the French president's idea of forging an international coalition against Hamas is at least an interesting proposal:
“At first glance the proposal seems rather unrealistic, but it is another way of trying to avert an invasion of Gaza and its unpredictable consequences. US experts are particularly concerned that the Israeli government has no strategy for the 'day after'. Assuming the operation achieves its goal, what will happen to Gaza afterwards? Who will administer the territory and its beleaguered population? What exactly does it mean to 'eliminate Hamas'? How can we prevent the movement, which has been entrenched in the Palestinian population for almost forty years, from rising again from the ashes?”
Negotiations unacceptable at this point
Great dangers await Israel on the other side of the crossroads, writes Le Figaro:
“If the Israeli prime minister doesn't go along with the 'coalition' proposed by Emmanuel Macron, he will have to make a choice. On the one hand there is the risk of getting caught in the Gaza trap and triggering a regional conflagration. On the other hand, the prospect of giving a 'victory' to terrorists covered in blood and hiding behind rows of hostages. ... Even if 'eradicating' the Islamist movement proves militarily impossible, the option of negotiating with the assassins seems politically unacceptable at this point.”
European unity will be put to the test
Ukrainska Pravda stresses how explosive the situation in the Middle East is for Europe:
“It is clear that the Israeli-Palestinian issue has divided European governments. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock recently remarked quite correctly that Hamas wants to drive a 'wedge of hatred' into the international community. This will gain importance when the tensions increase once the Israeli ground operation in Gaza begins (which will admittedly cause many civilian casualties). The EU must be prepared for the fact that this war will severely test European unity.”
Disempower Hamas to pave the way for peace
The Palestinians would have better prospects without terrorist groups that deny Israel's right to exist, says Duma:
“The obstacles blocking the Palestinian cause that seeks an independent state are to be found both in Israel and in Hamas. ... Israel's opponents can list many offences against the Palestinians. But Israel does not want to exterminate the Palestinians, it does not reject negotiations with them, it even recognises the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. ... However, Hamas is destroying the prospects of a Palestinian state. If Hamas and other such groups disappeared, Israel's key trump card would be eliminated. The Palestinians could open the way for their great dream: their own state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
Dilemma delaying a decision
Toms Rostoks, director of the Centre for Security and Strategic Research at the National Defence Academy of Latvia, comments on Delfi:
“The Israeli armed forces must try to find a balance in order to dismantle Hamas's infrastructure on the one hand but avoid causing many casualties among the civilian population and the Israeli army on the other. The problem is the tunnels built by Hamas. In theory there could be a number of ways to deal with them, but it is very likely that hostages are being held there. ... Israel faces a major dilemma about what to do and this has delayed the ground offensive in Gaza.”
Anti-government protests could flare up again
The mood among Israelis could slow Netanyahu down further, The Economist believes:
“Pressure from the families has already forced the government to change its plans. ... The hope of an agreement with Hamas on releasing at least some hostages is one reason Israel's invasion of Gaza has been delayed. ... The anguish of the hostages' families is feeding a wider fury felt by many Israelis over what they see as the government's slow and inept provision of relief to the communities devastated by Hamas and to the thousands who have been forced to leave their homes. Since the attack, the movement opposing Mr Netanyahu's government has suspended all demonstrations against it. But the respite may not last.”
Respond with a clear head
The US's reaction to 9/11 should be a warning to Israel, Der Spiegel recommends:
“The United States had the trust and sympathy of large parts of the world after the attack, but it squandered both because the war in Iraq spread not democracy but chaos; and because the US threw its own values overboard in the fight against terror. ... What Israel does in this war will determine not only how the country is perceived, but also whether there is a chance for a lasting peace afterwards. ... In other words: Israel - unlike the US - should respond to its 9/11 with a clear head. It should exchange the hot-headed desire for revenge for a cool-headed plan.”
Consider all ramifications
Commenting in NV, former Ukrainian foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin points to problems Israel should be prepared for if it launches a ground offensive:
“If this operation begins and some of the hostages are executed, perhaps even live on TV (we live in a media world), it will break many people's hearts and shatter their brains. ... And there is also a strategic issue: Israel can invade Gaza. It has the possibility to do this. The question is how it will get out. Israel was already in Gaza before 2005. And then withdrew. So what? Well, Hamas won the elections after it left.”
Tricking Hamas into making mistakes
Israeli journalist Igor Litwak explains on Echo why Israel may be delaying its ground offensive:
“I am not at all sure that Israel will start a ground war any time soon. That it will start it, I am sure. But I'm not so sure about 'soon'. ... Waiting for an invasion is far more unpleasant for the side whose territory is to be invaded. The people there will be constantly on edge, expecting it to start at any moment. And when people are nervous they make mistakes. ... And the key advantage of the attacking side: knowing when the attack will begin.”