Why is Israel risking a regional war in the Middle East?

Gaza has been struck with widespread destruction and displacement for the last year. Photo: Bloomberg

The Middle East has once again become the epicentre of global focus because of the ongoing Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah war. What began as a 'surprise attack' by Hamas on 7 October 2023 has spiralled into a protracted war with far-reaching geopolitical consequences. 

As the war enters its second year, the death toll continues to mount; nearly 42,010 people have died, along with 16,900 children and 11,500 women, who are nearly 70% of the total deaths, per health officials' report. The war has not only devastated Gaza but has also threatened to engulf the broader region—including Lebanon, Iran, and Syria—giving rise to the 'possibility' of a full-scale war.

The Israel-Hamas war has brought forth deep-rooted issues and critical questions about the reasons and motives, as it has now become a considerable 'war'. The reasons behind the invasion of Gaza by Israel are wide but not limited to the lack of accountability, Israeli far-right leadership, and the internal political dynamics. For some, the stated aim of Israel that it wanted to "destroy Hamas" was the justification for a military invasion of Gaza, while some argue that it is just a 'pretext'. 

Followed by Israeli military air attacks and ground invasions, Gaza has been struck with widespread destruction and displacement for the last year. In recent months, the invasion has long been drawn out into Lebanon and Syria, including more state and non-state actors such as Hezbollah.

"Destroying Hamas and Hezbollah": A maximalist and vague war aim

Israel's stated goal in the military invasion of Gaza to "destroy Hamas" has been a mainstay of its 'justification' for what is now an ongoing bloodbath. It is crucial to understand what destroying Hamas means, which has been the de facto government of Gaza since it seized control there in 2007, controlling essentials like social services, running schools, and conducting the day-to-day lives of more than 2 million people. It has 'very deep roots' in Gaza, says Dan Byman, a professor at Georgetown.

By November 2023, Israel reportedly had killed or captured one-third of Hamas's fighting force and smashed between one-fifth and one-fourth of its tunnel network. Nevertheless, as Byman points out, "none of them come close to eliminating Hamas." In addition, the term "destroying Hamas" is itself so vague as to permit a constant expansion of military operations and invasion of Gaza's and Lebanese lands, ignoring international law. 

For Israel, this is an explanation for a more intense or more prolonged war without clear metrics for 'successes.' This lack of clarity has resulted in what is swiftly becoming a war, but still has no end in sight.

The pursuit of that maximalist goal has created a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The fuzzy nature of the objective of 'destroying Hamas and Hezbollah' clouds what victory might look like and when the unlawful invasion might end. 

Paradoxically, the stiff military campaign meant to eliminate Hamas could cement its political authority among Palestinians. Both Gaza and the West Bank have felt increased support for Hamas because of the suffering that is being felt everywhere in Gaza. 

The support for Hamas in Palestine totalled 40%, six points higher than from the previous survey done three months ago, as shown by a poll taken by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) between 26 May and 1 June.

However, the maximalist element of this war aim fails to consider the context and the reasons why Hamas is popular with some Palestinians. Senior minister in Israel's wartime Cabinet Gadi Eisenkot said in January 2024 that whoever says that Hamas will be defeated completely 'is not speaking the truth.' 

Israeli leadership and internal political dynamics

At the heart of the war is the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose tendency to resolve crises in the direction of war has been catalysed not only by his personal political concerns but has also been influenced in particular by his hawkish attitude to security matters. 

Before the 7 October attack, Netanyahu—who was battling domestic difficulties before then, including corruption charges and a series of anti-judicial reform protests—was in a precarious political predicament. The Hamas attack exposed significant security letdowns under his leadership, leading to disparagement and calls for his resignation.

However, Natan Sachs of the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution explained, "Responsible leadership would prevent the anger and the need for future prevention from going in different directions. Along with that, it would try to shape public expectations about what the future might be." 

Instead, Netanyahu has been charged with whipping up public anger and painting an impossible picture of what can be achieved solely through military power. This approach made it hard to think about a less aggressive response or even engage in some meaningful peace negotiations.

In the face of the pressure, Netanyahu has adopted a hardline stance and declared that there must be a total victory over Hamas. He focused on presenting himself as an 'all-commanding' strong leader in times of national crisis as a way to strengthen his political support and avoid bringing attention to past failures. 

In this respect, figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have lobbied for harsh measures against Palestinians and against any concessions in peace negotiations. Nevertheless, opposition parties, although initially supportive of the war effort, have been increasingly critical of Netanyahu's handling of the war. This myopia neglected the long-term strategic sagacity. 

'Moral hazard' and 'Strategic ambiguity'

Traditionally applied in economics and other areas of international relations, the notion of moral hazard exhibits a poignant and troubling application. This is an instance of moral hazard, where Israel, assured by unshakeable US support, would feel emboldened to take harder steps than it otherwise would to avoid facing the consequences of those actions. 

This dynamic is enormously soothed by the fact that, from its foundation, the US has held a commitment to the maintenance of Israel's security, which has repeatedly been described as 'ironclad.'

In the current war, particularly, this dynamic has been very marked. The US has repeatedly called for Israel to show restraint in Gaza, but Israel has gone ahead and waged what has become an unprecedented invasion that has brought about nothing but destruction and civilian deaths. 

For example, President Biden made it clear publicly that Israel must make surgical strikes and avoid a large ground invasion of northern Gaza and southern Lebanon. Yet Israel went ahead with a big-scale ground invasion that did not seem to come with any repercussions from the US. When Biden said that Netanyahu had crossed a 'red line' in speaking of an invasion of Rafah, Israel followed that the next day with plans to carry out such an invasion.

The moral hazard is further complicated by the United States' policy of strategic ambiguity in the region. On the one hand, the US recalls its 'ironclad' commitment to Israel's security and right to self-defence; on the other, it has also voiced concern about civilian casualties and advocated a two-state solution. The ambiguity of US messaging serves as a means to continue to be flexible in its response, but the same ambiguity may make it unclear to both Israel and other regional actors as to what the limits of the US support, or tolerance for escalation, really are.

No pressure for strong accountability

The war between Israel and Hamas has laid bare a dangerous absence of accountability of Israeli authority on the international stage as chances of the conflict escalating into greater regional war grow. Despite a tide of calls for de-escalation to protect civilian lives, the international community has done little to bring to bear meaningful pressure to stop the war. 

Nevertheless, with the mounting civilian toll, major world powers and international bodies have taken only a few concrete steps to enforce the laws of war. Israel does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and in 2021, the court announced it was investigating alleged war crimes in Palestinian territories. 

On 20 May ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for five accused of atrocity crimes related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. The individuals mentioned are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar. 

Given the expectably slow pace of ICC proceedings, any accountability through the mechanism is likely to be years after the current conflict.

In a nutshell, Israel's actions, enabled by unwavering US support, have created a moral hazard situation. It has allowed Israel to push forward with its military escalations—perhaps ushering in a wider regional war. 

The path of war chosen indicates a failure of political leadership and strategic thinking. This path of war is a wrong path by all means, and it needs to be stopped urgently as the humanitarian toll rises.

Sketch: TBS

Kawsar Uddin Mahmud is a political analyst based in Dhaka. He is currently working as a Researcher at the KRF- Center for Bangladesh and Global Affairs (CBGA), Dhaka. He can be reached via: Kawsarduir@gmail.com

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.