Opinion by Greg Ray
I stand with the victims of this and other wars and massacres. Whether they are Jewish, Muslim or of any other faith and irrespective of the colour of their skin or the language they speak, I wish with all my heart that their lives could be restored and made whole. I do not stand with terrorism and I will not stand with warmongers. I will not stand with Hamas and I will not stand with Israel’s Netanyahu government.
I stand with those who want peace and I salute those who, against the odds in nations and communities dominated by warmongers, keep making their voices heard above the sounds of gunfire and bombs.
I stand with those who are calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
I agree with Jewish Voice for Peace, one of the groups of Jewish people calling for a ceasefire. At a big protest in New York recently, a spokesperson for the group declared that Israel’s military operations in the besieged Palestinian territory were not primarily about national security. Since then, JVP has ramped up its protests and its ceasefire demands, putting itself in the firing line of some US Congress figures who want such calls and protests banned.
Indeed we are in extraordinary territory here. UK Conservative front-bencher Paul Bristow was sacked for calling for a ceasefire. Australia abstained in a vote in the United Nations on the subject of a ceasefire call, calling down the wrath of Opposition leader Peter Dutton who insisted Australia should have actively voted against a ceasefire. Please let this sink in. It has become controversial and potentially dangerous to one’s career to support the idea of asking the Israeli Government to consider halting its attacks on Palestinians. Even after the thousands of deaths and the extreme destruction that has been wrought in revenge for the terrible October 7 atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists it is still regarded as somehow wrong to want the killings and destruction to stop. The Secretary General of the United Nations was furiously attacked for daring to say the Hamas attacks had not occurred in a vacuum.
Netanyahu’s anti-peace strategy
How did they not occur in a vacuum? Israel’s long-term mistreatment of its Arab citizens, its brutal siege of Gaza and its encouragement of illegal settlements on the West Bank are common knowledge. It is also firmly on record that Netanyahu and his ilk helped create and bolster Hamas because they wanted to be able to use its extremist policies as an excuse to refuse to negotiate with the Palestinians. Many Israelis blame him and his anti-peace strategies for this awful mess. It is not an unreasonable opinion to hold. In a recent survey, it was reported that 76 per cent of Israelis believed Netanyahu should be sacked. Around the world, many people who had no real opinion about Israel are being taught by the Netanyahu government to view the nation with a horror that is profound, deep and must inevitably be lasting. No amount of railing about anti-semitism will change that.
It is not and never was “anti-semitic” to call for a ceasefire. Two wrongs never make a right, and the Israeli government’s actions are piling wrong on top of wrong. Surely it must realise that the more outrageous its actions become the graver the risk of provoking the populations – if not the governments – of its anguished Arab neighbours into actions that may precipitate a greater conflagration than the slaughter now underway. Already the conflict has spilled into Lebanon and Yemen – at least – and with the US and its allies moving more military personnel and equipment into the region it looks as though a great deal more trouble is expected.
Australia has quietly sent forces to the Middle East over the past two weeks, with little public discussion. Australian general Angus Campbell told a Senate estimate hearing last week that: “I do not wish to characterise [this] additional effort. It’s simply that we’re in a situation in which a conflict has broken out, that conflict is potentially in its early stages, and there are many Australian nationals [in the region].” Read those words carefully: a “conflict potentially in its early stages”. Given that Australia is almost always one of the first to join any military “coalition of the willing” to which the US issues invitations, this deployment might seem ominous.
It appears to me – despite the clouds of smoke and steam from non-stop, white-hot propaganda – that this wicked bloody business is indeed about a lot more than the security of the state of Israel. It looks to me – unqualified as I am – as if this is also about the ongoing project by Israeli extremists to erase the idea of Palestine from maps and minds and quite likely also about the political survival of Benjamin Netanyahu, whom I have long regarded as one of the most dangerous people in the world. This article by Middle East scholar Richard Falk makes some of the same points, but with greater authority.
A great deal of speculation is suggesting that Israel’s aim might be to drive Gaza’s population into the Egypt-controlled Sinai Peninsula, achieving the permanent removal of the Palestinians and moving closer to its territorial goal of “Greater Israel”. There has been talk of Egypt being rewarded with some hefty debt-forgiveness if it accepts the refugees, who might be housed in huge camps built with funds provided by Israel and its allies.
Violent extremists
Meanwhile, the remaining fragmented Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank – which have been chipped away year after year by illegal but government-sanctioned Israeli settlements – are experiencing a major upswing in violence initiated by right-wing Israeli extremists.
Only weeks ago Benjamin Netanyahu’s long reign as Israel’s prime minister was in serious trouble. Not only was he facing charges of personal corruption, he had Israeli society on the verge of open revolt against his extremely controversial plan to undermine Israel’s court system. This proposed wrecking of the court system would – as this authoritative article in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper explains – potentially help Netanyahu evade the charges against him and allow his government to pass legislation overriding any court decisions. It would also allow his government to pass laws that no court could overrule and give his government greater power over appointing judges. Importantly, the Supreme Court is seen as an obstacle by Israel’s religious extremist parties which want – among other things – to increase and intensify pressure on the remaining Palestinian enclaves by expanding the program of land-confiscation. Ultra-Orthodox Jews also controversially claim exemption from military service, in addition to other special benefits, and they want these special privileges protected against attack by other Israelis who see them as unfair and discriminatory. Many Israelis often argue that it is unreasonable for ultra-orthodox Jews to press for hostility against Palestinians while also refusing to directly participate in military service. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets to protest against Netanyahu’s moves against the court. Many fear that, if his intrigues in this direction are successful, Israel will come much closer to being, irrevocably, a religious-apartheid state. This was Netanyahu’s predicament up until October.
Suddenly, thanks to apparent incredible lapses in Israeli intelligence, a long-planned and elaborate Hamas attack was somehow permitted to occur. Thanks to these amazing lapses and the brutal attack that they allowed, the focus is off Israel’s political crisis and Netanyahu has gained an extraordinary reprieve. I say the apparent intelligence lapses are incredible not only because Israel’s siege of Gaza is so notoriously intense and its spy networks are so notoriously efficient. Added to those factors are highly credible reports from multiple sources that Egypt actually warned Israel of a major attack three days before it happened. There are also reports – apparently accepted as fact – that Hamas built a replica of an Israeli settlement in order to practice its attack and that this was seen by Israeli intelligence but not acted upon.
Weeks before the Hamas attack Netanyahu gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York at which he showed a map of his proposed “New Middle East” which was chiefly notable for its complete omission of any reference to Palestine. The map showed no West Bank, no East Jerusalem and no Gaza. This is consistent with the concept of “Greater Israel” promoted by some Israelis as their ultimate political goal. Maps of “Greater Israel” also often incorporate parts of Lebanon and Syria. Netanyahu’s speech was about Israel’s improving diplomatic relations with its Arab neighbours, a situation that some supporters of the Palestinian cause appear to find deeply troubling and which may well have helped Hamas decide on its bloody action.
While Netanyahu appears to be revelling in the campaign of destruction against people living in Gaza, on the alleged basis that the campaign is directed at Hamas, his own government’s role in deliberating nurturing Hamas is in danger of being glossed over. Netanyahu promoted Hamas as a ruling factor in Gaza for reasons discussed in this article in The Times of Israel. Right-wing Israeli groups bolstered Hamas, knowing this made true peace and genuine Palestinian statehood extremely unlikely. Given that Israeli right-wing extremists worked so hard to suppress moderate Palestinian groups and encourage Islamic extremism, and given Israel’s harsh siege of Gaza and continuing violent and illegal land-grabs on the West Bank, savage Palestinian reaction – however much it is to be deplored – was practically inevitable.
Amazing security lapses
When the October attack managed extraordinarily to evade Israeli detection, innocent citizens were in the firing line. Early reports, however, of mass decapitations of babies and systematic rapes of young women appear to have been fabrications. Even stripped of the early exaggeration the Hamas attack was extremely brutal and Palestinians must have expected a severe retaliation. But what Netanyahu has delivered goes far beyond any definition of proportionality.
The horrendous damage done to Gaza and the massive scale of the bloodshed speak for themselves. But published comments by senior Israeli figures add distressing context. Israel’s defence minister Yoav Gallant, declared: “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” Another Israeli spokesman said Gaza would be reduced to “a city of tents” in which there would be “no buildings”. In a tweet, later deleted, Netanyahu himself wrote that “This is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle”. Israeli president Isaac Herzog insisted that all Palestinians had to share the blame for the Hamas attacks. “It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat,” he said. Israeli Knesset member Ariel Kallner reportedly tweeted: “Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join! Their Nakba, because like then in 1948, the alternative is clear”.
Meanwhile in the United States, the State Department was circulating memos instructing staff not to use words or phrases that might tend to encourage thoughts of peace. Some of the manic right-wing pundits that populate US mainstream media trumpeted demands for the complete destruction of Gaza.
The entire situation reeks of madness – or of deeply evil calculation.
The West could have pressured Israel to cease fire, then also helped moderate Israelis apply pressure for Netanyahu be called to account for his deadly policies. The West could have pressured Qatar and Iran to push Hamas to release its hostages. The fact that it has not done these things suggests it is comfortable with the possibility of Gaza and perhaps the West Bank being entirely purged of Palestinian people, and that it is also ready to live with the growing possibility of a major escalation of hostilities.
Who makes the next move?
Given that both the US and Israel have been champing at the bit for years for a war with Iran, and given that a war with Iran would involve the interests of Russia and China – both of which have been trying to boost their own influence in the Middle East and Africa, the stage might be being set for something very big indeed.
Consider the facts that, over the past year or two, the US has boosted its military cooperation with Israel, and is reported to have greatly expanded its bases there in preparation for unknown exigencies, but certainly upgrading Israel’s anti-missile defences with an eye firmly on Iran. No sooner had the October 7 attack occurred than the US moved significant military assets – including strike aircraft – into the area. Tentative propaganda alleging Iranian involvement in the Hamas attacks began to appear in Western media outlets.
Great-power geopolitics is often compared to the game of chess, with good reason. In both pursuits, moves in one direction can mask deep intentions, and sacrifices are made in pursuit of later advantage. Threats are applied with all possible reactions anticipated. Forces are brought to bear and deterrents applied. Pawns are removed, having served their purpose, leaving the board clear for the contest of bigger, more powerful pieces.
If Iran is to be considered the chief sponsor of Hamas then Russia and China are the sponsors of Iran, since that country is a key part of their BRICS organisation, working hard to displace the US and its dollar from their positions of dominance. If Iran commits some provocation – or is blamed for one – and the long-anticipated war against it is triggered, what happens next? Russia’s hands are tied in Ukraine and China is increasingly isolated and surrounded. Perhaps neither could afford to react to an attack on Iran. But could they afford not to react? When global hegemony is at stake no move can be considered off-limits. I am wondering what the next move will be, who will make it, and what the repercussions might be. There is little doubt in my mind that these questions have been asked and war-gamed in the halls of the mighty.
