Written by – Elijah J. Magnier:
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is visiting Israel for the fifth time amid significant disagreements between the two sides over the running of the war in Gaza. The aim of this visit isn’t to stop the war in Gaza but to enter a new phase, the so-called ‘third phase’. This is even though the previous objectives and phases have yet to be achieved. The prolongation of the war raises concerns about its potential impact, especially on the degradation of the resistance’s capabilities. However, given the results observed during the three-month conflict, such an outcome seems unlikely.
The Israeli military withdrew from several areas in northern Gaza and repositioned itself on the outskirts while at the same time intensifying its attacks in the south through several approaches. They have met and continue facing unwavering, natural resistance in these areas. This resistance, inherent in both the north and the south, has remained steadfast throughout more than three months of conflict, harassing the occupation forces and launching missiles at Tel Aviv on a regular basis.
Subscribe to get access
Read more of this content when you subscribe today.
In a dramatic display before the world community, Israel has deliberately demolished entire neighbourhoods and committed large-scale destruction and massacres to compensate for its lack of victory. This is the worst damage inflicted on Gaza since it was destroyed by Alexander the Great in 333 BC after a 100-day siege. Despite historical precedents, including Israel’s occupation of Gaza until 2005 and its subsequent withdrawal due to high costs, the lessons seem to have been ignored. Eighteen years of Israeli siege and abuse have only served to strengthen the skills, equipment, weapons and tactics of the Palestinian resistance.
The systematic destruction in Gaza has only increased the ferocity of the resistance, which now steadfastly refuses to submit to Israeli control or will. Israel’s experience, such as the occupation of Beirut in 1982, mirrors the current situation. The Israeli military then struggled against the stubborn resistance and now faces similar challenges in a Palestinian city deeply wounded and bent on revenge against the occupying forces.
American and some Israeli officials are discussing what they call the ‘third phase’ of managing Gaza after the war. This dialogue seems to assume that the first phase, aimed at gaining control of Gaza, and the second phase, focused on eliminating resistance forces, have been completed. However, the reality on the ground contradicts this assumption, as Israel has not established control inside the Strip, as evidenced by the continued resistance attacks and the withdrawal from the north that observed the return of a large number of inhabitants.
Moreover, the prospect of defeating the resistance seems remote. If it were to happen, it could lead to an escalation of responses by other groups. Hezbollah, for example, has already demonstrated its capabilities through actions such as the attack on the air command and control base on Mount Meron. These attacks suggest that further unpredictable tactics may be employed, primarily if the resistance in Gaza seeks or needs additional support from its allies.
The Israeli government is experiencing heavy internal discord in its relations with the United States – where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is known for his apparent defiance – and among its ministers over conflicting goals. Moreover, Netanyahu faces challenges in achieving his goals, which include freeing prisoners and ending the influence of ‘Hamas’. He is also under pressure from extremist ministers in his own government who are demanding the removal of Palestinians from Gaza to make way for Israeli settlers. This controversial move puts Netanyahu in a precarious position, especially with the United States, which opposes such transfers. It also undermines global moral and humanitarian support for Israel. It also puts Israel’s allies in a difficult position because of their association with this policy, especially as Israel is under scrutiny by the International Criminal Court, as Israeli officials themselves have acknowledged.
Of particular concern is the statement by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the dire situation in Gaza. In particular, he highlighted the food insecurity affecting 90 per cent of Gaza’s population and the irreversible damage being done to Gaza’s children. Blinken’s awareness of Israel’s actions is evident, but the superpower’s response is mainly limited to expressions of regret and a refusal to consider the resettlement of Palestinians outside Gaza. Practical measures to address Israel’s ongoing actions are conspicuously absent. As a result, America’s reputation and moral standing are suffering losses comparable in magnitude to Israel’s military casualties, which, according to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, exceed 12,000 dead and wounded. The financial cost is estimated at around $60 billion. What’s more, there is growing global contempt for the Zionist entity and its policies, which are increasingly seen as criminal.
The conflict remains open to different outcomes, as Israel has not yet achieved its objectives and continues to use aggressive tactics. The protracted nature of the war increases the risk of further deterioration and encourages Gaza’s allies to intensify their actions against Israel. This highlights Israel’s vulnerability and the erosion of its international image while keeping global attention firmly focused on the Palestinian issue.
Support for Gaza from the Lebanese Front has become increasingly evident, especially with Hezbollah’s active involvement in the conflict. Hezbollah has launched a series of continuous attacks against Israel, demonstrating its determination in the struggle. This aggression has resulted in Israel suffering significant blows. However, there is widespread concern that the widening of the Front could lead to an unmanageable level of conflict, making it difficult for Israel to assess and manage the potential casualties and consequences.
On the Yemen front, there’s a strong call for the siege of Gaza to be lifted. This position overlooks the coalition that America has formed to protect the sea lanes. The Yemeni Front, particularly the Houthis, have expressed their indifference to this coalition, suggesting that their missile capabilities could target ships that violate their decree against carrying goods destined for Israel.
In addition, the Iraqi Front has become active and is not limiting its operations to attacks in Iraq and Syria but is also sending missile signals. The Iraqi resistance – expected of a more significant role in the future – moved towards the Karish gas field and rocket launches towards Haifa as an indicative of a strategic show of force, signalling the ability to strike unexpected targets.
Regardless of their effectiveness, these signals indicate a readiness for further escalation if deemed necessary.
If the war continues and approaches a point where it exhausts the Palestinian resistance, it may be necessary to widen the Front and use rolling methods. These strategies are already being considered and could be activated if it’s decided that the current level of Israeli fragmentation provides an opportunity to intensify the conflict. Such an escalation could potentially hasten the end of the war.
Before 7 October, instability in the Israeli political landscape and the performance of its extremist government reportedly caused 250,000 settlers to leave the country. Since the start of the war, 470,000 settlers are thought to have gone, returning to their countries of origin. This departure has led to a 70 per cent drop in Jewish immigration to Israel. If new fronts open up in the conflict, or if the Israeli army fails to provide adequate protection and security for the settlers and is unable to neutralise Palestinian resistance, Israel’s situation could change irreversibly. Under these circumstances, any post-war plans for Gaza could become irrelevant, especially in light of the continued resistance in Gaza and the military challenges facing Israel. The failure to impose conditions on reconstruction materials and regulate medicine and food supplies could indicate a more comprehensive strategic failure.
Given the inability of the Israeli army to effectively occupy and maintain a presence in Gaza, there is speculation that the Israeli government may collapse, leading to the formation of a new government. This new government would then face the daunting task of trying to restore Israel’s international image and the prestige of its now-beleaguered military.
