Dionysos, Content Writer, Headline Diplomat eMagazine
Opinion piece
Introduction:
The recent Hamas assault on Israel has drawn comparisons to the magnitude of 9/11, evoking both physical and psychological trauma akin to the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The international support for Israel echoes the solidarity the United States received post-9/11. In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aims to reshape the Middle East, mirroring the U.S. war on terror’s objective against the Taliban. However, caution is warranted to avoid repeating mistakes made in the aftermath of 9/11.
Israel’s attack: a resemblance to 9/11
The magnitude of the recent Hamas assault on Israel has been likened to that of 9/11 in the U.S. The physical and psychological effects of the attack resemble the trauma of the Twin Towers and Pentagon being hit by hijacked planes. In this instance, the world’s collective sympathy for Israel is reminiscent of the support the United States received in the wake of 9/11.
In response to the attack, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed that Israel will alter the Middle East. The plan is to overthrow Hamas, akin to the U.S. war on terror that sought to take down the Taliban. Nevertheless, Israel should be wary when responding and consider the differences between its present situation and the U.S. example, to avoid similar errors to the U.S.
In response to 9/11, the UN Security Council immediately met and released a binding resolution that upheld the United States’ right to self-defence and to fight against any international threats caused by terrorist acts, without specifying the entities that could lawfully be targeted. Regarding Israel, the UN Security Council held meetings, yet did not even produce a statement, let alone a binding resolution.
Despite how some may interpret it, certain members of the international community are not inclined to give Israel a free pass to defend itself. Israel’s response seems to be going all in to obliterate Hamas’ military capabilities, ceasing all operations, and leaving Gaza in ruins.
Reflecting on history, Israel may find it valuable to consider the geopolitical landscape while drawing comparisons between 9/11 and its counter-terrorism efforts. The US, for example, may have driven the Taliban out of Afghanistan, but once they left, the Taliban reclaimed control. In Gaza, Hamas has taken on the role of supplying social services that are usually provided by the state. Thus, it is imperative that Israel puts a plan in place for what would replace Hamas in the case of their removal, to avoid the situation in Libya after the ousting of Gaddafi.
The Palestinian Authority, which ruled Gaza until 2007, could be a potential replacement, however, it is uncertain if Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would be open to negotiations with the Israeli government to fulfil this role. Should the answer be no, and Israel would like to avoid reoccupying Gaza, they may create systems under their control to guarantee no weapons enter the area. Israel Katz, an Israeli minister, once proposed the concept of an artificial island off the Gaza coast, where all trades would be inspected by Israel and other international parties before reaching Gaza.
For Israel to successfully restrict the extent of its activities, it must be mindful of the geographic and personal parameters of its operations. The U.S. war on terror brought many challenges in terms of policy, law, and morality once drones were used in multiple places, ranging from Somalia to Pakistan, long after 2001. Hamas members are in several countries, with Turkey being the site of the political part of the organization. To contain the scope of its actions, Israel needs to be mindful of the areas it is responding to and who it is targeting.
Israel ought to ponder three different legal matters in the face of the Hamas offensive. Regarding the status of Hamas militants captured by Israel, the U.S. attempted to create a unique situation where those affiliated with Al Qaeda were labeled as “unlawful combatants” with no rights like those of prisoners of war. They claimed that neither U.S. nor international laws applied in Guantanamo Bay, where many of these people were sent. This new legal concept was challenged by U.S. courts and scholars of international law, and ultimately the idea was rejected.
If Israel begins to apprehend numerous Hamas members, it will be confronted with the difficulty of determining if they should be labeled non-international combatants or prisoners of war. Incarcerating them without indictments solely because these Hamas combatants pose a risk to Israel’s security would expand the utilization of the country’s administrative detention-which is only meant to be used in extraordinary cases. To the same extent that, as is the case with the U.S. war on terror, the arrest of Hamas operatives might last beyond the current extraordinary period of escalation, administrative detention could become the norm, and Israel should avoid this situation.
When it comes to the characterization of the Israel-Hamas conflict, it has been unclear whether Israel perceives it as an international or non-international one. The Israeli Supreme Court has stated in the Targeted Killings case that the conflict is an international one, yet the Israeli government has not given an exact response. The Israeli Foreign Ministry declared during past operations in Gaza during 2014 that the Israeli Army is guided by the regulations relevant to both international and non-international conflicts.
The characterization of the conflict has raised many concerns regarding the legal treatment of terrorists. This is why the U.S. and Israel have been hesitant to clearly define it. Currently, with the 150 Israeli hostages held in Gaza, Israel may decide to take a firmer stance on the international nature of the conflict. If it does, this would mean that the Third Geneva Convention would apply and the International Red Cross would have the right to visit the hostages, as previously requested.
It could be argued that because Hamas does not comply with international law, it would be pointless for Israel to focus on this legal standpoint. Nevertheless, Hamas has endeavoured to exploit international law to bolster its own point of view. After their violent attack, they have attempted to suggest that the Israeli civilians in Otef Aza who were killed or abducted were not actually civilians, but combatants, or that they launched their attack as a pre-emptive move. There is no need to consider the veracity of these claims. They do, however, illustrate how categorizing the conflict as an international one could apply more pressure on Hamas to provide captured Israeli soldiers with assurances and visits from the International Red Cross.
Rethinking its stance towards the International Criminal Court (ICC) may be an option for Israel. They could refer the current Palestinian war crimes to the court, which the U.S. post-9/11 reaction did not request intervention for, fearing that the court would investigate any possible U.S. crimes. An ICC investigation is already in progress in Israel, with videos available of the kidnappers taking Israeli civilians to Gaza, which presents a a step towards justice if referred to the ICC.
The military action initiated by Hamas has caused a prolonged battle. The scenario in Israel and Gaza will never be the same again. After Israel carries out its current operation, it is likely that a new power balance will emerge in Gaza, followed by a change in Israeli leadership. This situation may necessitate a demand from the international community and Israel for Palestinians to acquire self-determination through statehood in Gaza and autonomy in the West Bank so that no future wars with Hamas will be fought on two fronts. As such, Israel must remain committed to international law. Although the current situation may seem bleak, eventually the region may enjoy a period of peace and restoration under a two-state approach.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Hamas assault on Israel has thrust the region into a complex and challenging situation, reminiscent of historical events such as 9/11. As Israel contemplates its response and the potential removal of Hamas, it must draw on the lessons of the past, recognizing the need for a comprehensive plan to prevent unintended consequences and instability. The international community’s varied responses highlight the importance of navigating legal complexities and diplomatic nuances to ensure a balanced and just resolution.
Call to action
Moving forward, Israel must prioritize strategic planning for the post-Hamas era, engaging with international partners to build consensus and address the evolving geopolitical landscape. Clear communication and collaboration with entities like the UN Security Council and the Palestinian Authority are crucial to shaping a stable future. Additionally, a careful reassessment of Israel’s stance towards the International Criminal Court (ICC) can provide a platform for seeking justice within the framework of international law. By adhering to these principles and committing to a two-state approach, Israel can pave the way for a period of peace, stability, and self-determination in the region.
Featured photo: Julia Volk: https://www.pexels.com/el-gr/photo/5273093/
