The leader of the British Conservative Party and former head of the opposition in Great Britain, William Hague, claimed in a column he published in the British “Times” that an Israeli attack in Rafah could be a fatal mistake.
Will Israel withdraw from its military plans in Rafah? The pressure from the countries of the world is increasing
Beyond the tactical achievements: the operation in Rafah conveyed a message to the leaders of Hamas Hello Ben Hanan
According to him, “After the October 7 massacre of Israel, I wrote that the Israelis would have to be careful not to fall into the trap of Hamas. More than four months later, this could be the week when Israel falls into that trap. A full-scale military attack on Rafah, the part of which are currently concentrated About one and a half million people, will not bring about the ‘total victory’ promised by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, but will reduce Israel’s security in the longer term.”
“You don’t have to identify with Hamas in any way to think that a major attack on Rafah would be a mistake. Perhaps, like me, you would agree with the need for Israel’s military campaign so far – while understanding that more humanitarian aid is essential – and accept that the atrocities on October 7 called for a crushing response. It is understandable that no hostages would be released without extreme pressure on their captors. You can recognize that it is Hamas itself that is deliberately placing civilians in the line of fire, waging war from hospitals and even from tunnels under the UN aid agency. You can believe all this, like me, but still think that Rafah could be a turning point for Israel, a military bridge too far, a moment of eruption that brings a drop in the trash,” he added.
Rafih (Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa)
He also claimed that “For Netanyahu, Rafah is the path to the absolute victory he is looking for. If you think of Hamas as an army, it makes sense: Hamas had 24 battalions of fighters; Israel claims to have destroyed 18 of them. Four of the remaining are in Rafah; destroy these four and the absolute victory Coming soon. However, while Hamas does have many characteristics of an army, it also has the characteristics of something else: an insurgency. And we know from long and bitter experience that the military units can be defeated, but it will re-emerge with more recruits than ever before.
We know this from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Israelis themselves know this well from their entry into Lebanon in 1982, which eventually led to a withdrawal in 2000, leaving behind a stronger enemy. Hezbollah is now a greater threat than ever. An absolute victory can be achieved over an army on the battlefield, but not over an insurgency that derives its strength from an idea, rooted in the population. To win over this, wise politics must accompany the exercise of power.
To send the Israel Defense Forces to Rafah with the same attitude of the last months is to ignore such politics. A huge number of people crammed into a small space. In practice, they have nowhere to go. Many are on the brink of starvation and disease. President Biden called Netanyahu on Sunday to demand that he not proceed without a credible plan for their security and support. For the War Cabinet, the four Hamas brigades are a powerful temptation. But another number they have to consider is the estimated 17,000 orphans in Gaza. Without any hope for peace in the Middle East, these orphans will one day form the Hamas battalions of the future.
Rafih (Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Salem)
The decision that will be made in Jerusalem about what to do in Rafah is therefore of enormous significance, perhaps the most decisive strategic moment since the Gaza war began. It represents a fateful choice between one school of Israeli thought – that no peace with Palestinians is sustainable and only deterring the conflict will work – and the other: there must be room for a two-state solution one day, otherwise it will never happen.
Look around the world, and it is easy to argue that only deterrence prevents war in situations that cannot be resolved peacefully. From the 38th parallel dividing North and South Korea, to the line of control between India and Pakistan in Kashmir, to the NATO-Russia border around the Baltic states, only the concept of deterrence holds international peace. This is an argument we make endlessly. This is why we are building new nuclear submarines. This is something we wish Donald Trump, with his infantile talk of encouraging attacks on underpaid allies, would understand. And when the war in Ukraine eventually ends, only Russia’s deterrence, by integrating Ukraine into NATO, will prevent it from breaking out again.
It is understandable, then, that Israelis might think that what works for most of the rest of the world will work for them. Except it isn’t. It worked on one level – nuclear capability and military capability forced the Arab states to give up their struggle to eradicate Israel. However, deterrence cannot stop armed groups and terrorists who do not belong to the state and do not care what happens to their own people. Military expert Sir Lawrence Friedman pointed this out, arguing that Israel has gone even further, trying to destroy the threat completely. But it may fail without a political vision of who will rule Gaza – someone who is neither Hamas nor Israel.
The diplomacy of the last few months has revealed that there is still a solution to the war in the Middle East, one that in time reasonable people on all sides can embrace. Hostages are released, Hamas leaders leave Gaza, Israel withdraws, the Palestinian Authority is re-established, settlements are halted, the Saudis normalize relations with Israel, the US gives guarantees to the Saudis, Western countries recognize Palestine as a state and the Israelis accept it. This is the context in which David Cameron said , very rightly, that Britain may recognize a Palestinian state – not a change of policy but a reminder that it can be done.
Anyone can appreciate that such a solution is a long experience and will require years of building trust and patience. It has little chance without the removal of Netanyahu and a better Arab grip on the Palestinian leadership. But it would be a terrible mistake for Israel to further reduce the space for such a solution, while unwittingly contributing to more wars that cannot be deterred and in which total victory is impossible. The trap is open before her. The future of the Middle East may well depend on Rafih’s fate.”