By Sean Bell, Military analyst
The horrific Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October shocked the world and precipitated a predictably robust Israeli response.
Despite the atrocities, there was an air of expectation that this was simply another episode in the long-running conflict that would – following a period of military retaliation – allow the “dust” to settle once again.
At his news conference on the evening of 28 October, many expected the growing Palestinian civilian casualties and the alarming humanitarian crisis to lead Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to mark the beginning of the end of Israel’s retaliation.
Instead, Mr Netanyahu declared war – vowing to “solve the Hamas problem” and warning of a long and brutal campaign.
What are the implications of this alarming escalation in the conflict?
Israel relies heavily on US support to maintain its military standing in the region.
The unresolved regional issues have led to decades of deteriorating living conditions for Palestinians, high unemployment of 50%, and a growing sense of despair at the bleak prospects for the region.
Hamas (and Iran) has exploited this despair by routinely conducting rocket attacks against Israel which eventually provokes a robust military response.
However, on this occasion, Hamas’s deplorable actions triggered a significantly more dramatic reaction from Mr Netanyahu. He declared war on Hamas.
This is very significant. A war is defined as a military conflict in which participants are willing to make any sacrifice of lives and other reserves to obtain a complete victory.
Blinken meets Herzog in Israel
This usually involves mobilisation, a refusal to compromise, a blurring of the status of soldier and civilian, and a total control of society.
In WWII, the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial and scientific capability behind the war effort – erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources.
Although the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) still prevails – military necessity, humanity, distinction and proportionality – the level of tolerance and judgement applied is very different.
Over the past 70 years, the West has become accustomed to wars of choice, or counter-insurgencies where “hearts and minds” are a decisive factor.
In such conflicts, the West is obliged – and indeed incentivised – to ensure close adherence to the LOAC, with specific focus on innocent civilian casualties.
Very few survive with clear memories of the ferocity, brutality and impact of wars of national survival – such as WWII.
Mr Netanyahu has framed the conflict as a war to provide him the latitude and opportunity to pursue Hamas, regardless of the consequences for the Palestinian population.
However, wars are conventionally state on state, and although Hamas was originally elected by the Gaza Palestinian population in 2006, there has not been any election since.
And, despite the deep-seated frustrations of the Gazan populous, it is very hard to believe that they support the 7 October atrocities.
That leaves the grave risk that millions of Palestinians become innocent victims of Mr Netanyahu’s decision, perpetuating a cycle of hatred that makes the ambition of peace exponentially more difficult.
Some journalists try to draw comparisons with the US efforts to attack IS in Mosul – however, that was a hearts and minds operation where the US had to be extremely careful to minimise civilian casualties.
Israel’s hunt for Hamas shows no such restraint.
Israel bombs Hamas ‘tunnel route’ in Gaza
The politics of the region are difficult enough and will never be resolved through violence.
Whatever Mr Netanyahu’s motivations for declaring a war, this will never “solve” the Hamas issue, but will have huge repercussions for the innocent victims of this dreadful escalation that will be felt for generations.
As the famed US writer Joyce Carol Oates once wrote: “The folly of war is that it can have no natural end except in the extinction an entire people.”
@Sky News
