As unlikely as the latter may seem, there are precedents for it. “When a single Israeli action has resulted in a civilian death toll that the world cannot tolerate, it’s often become a tipping point in the course of conflict,” writes Dan Perry for the Forward. “Perhaps the most well-remembered such case was Israel’s 2006 shelling of Qana in Lebanon, which killed more than 100 displaced people. Outrage over the Qana massacre was so extreme that the strike ended up being one of the final actions in Israel’s (quite justifiable) ‘Grapes of Wrath’ operation against Hezbollah terrorists.”
With the investigation ongoing, the precise sequence of events is as yet unknown. “The Israeli military is investigating the possibility that munitions stored near a compound in Gaza hit by an air strike on Sunday may have caught fire, killing more than 40 civilians, a spokesperson said on Tuesday,” Reuters reported. “Chief military spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said it was still unclear what set off the deadly blaze in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, but added that the 17 kilogram munitions used in the strike were believed to be too small to have set off such a big fire.”
Whatever the specifics of this incident, the deaths would not have occurred but for Israel’s incursion. Accordingly, the Israeli government finds itself the target of international condemnation. The government’s response did not help matters. As Israeli press reported, Netanyahu was silent for nearly 24 hours and then merely expressed regret over a “a tragic mishap” and promised the Knesset he would investigate.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported, “Egypt’s military said one of its soldiers was shot dead during an exchange of fire in the Rafah area, without providing further details. Israel said it was in contact with Egyptian authorities, and both sides said they were investigating.” And both these deadly events came just days after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a vaguely worded opinion that Israel must “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
The ICJ ruling (to which Israel and the United States object strenuously), the Rafah deaths and the Egyptian exchange collectively intensify the impression of recklessness, disarray and arrogance in a military operation already facing criticism for lack of a viable strategic plan. After so many warnings about Israel’s obligation to minimize civilian casualties and, specifically, to forgo a full-scale invasion into densely populated Rafah (forcing nearly 1 million people to flee), the backlash to Netanyahu’s conduct of the war intensifies. Already, domestic opposition is coalescing.
Yair Lapid, the opposition leader and chairman of Yesh Atid, and Avigdor Liberman, the Yisrael Beytenu chairman, met with New Hope chairman Gideon Sa’ar on Wednesday “to discuss the formation of an alternative government,” the Jerusalem Post reported. “Sources in the opposition said the three parties are taking steps to overthrow the government and combine different parties to form a new government.” They are also planning to include war cabinet member Benny Gantz, who has vowed to leave the emergency cabinet and pull his centrist party out of Netanyahu’s coalition if there is no postwar plan by June 8.
In sum, Netanyahu faces loud and harsh criticism from all sides: the international community, the Biden administration, members of the U.S. Congress, current and retired Israeli military officials, and mass protests that have become increasingly antagonistic toward him. Though the sources are different, the complaints (e.g., no strategic plan, not enough focus on the hostages, insufficient attention to mass civilian casualties, courting of international scorn, vile public comments that engender international legal action) are largely the same. The criticism has intensified in the aftermath of the latest civilian disaster and might help shift momentum in favor of a cease-fire.
Meanwhile, the initial response from the Biden administration was exceptionally cautious, to the dismay of critics who imagine President Biden has the power to control the Netanyahu government. A National Security Council spokesman initially called the deaths “heartbreaking” and emphasized that “Israel must take every precaution possible to protect civilians.” White House spokesman John Kirby later maintained that the administration had not seen evidence that an event violating Biden’s red line — a full-scale invasion — had taken place. As insufficient as the response may be to many critics, in holding back on more vocal public condemnation, the Biden team preserves the chance for intense behind-the-scenes efforts (now matched by more unified Israeli opponents) and leaves the door open to later discussions of a Saudi peace plan.
Inextricably, Israel moves closer to an inflection point. Domestic and international outrage over its gross errors and strategic disarray, worry that Israeli troops have been “stretched too thin” and Netanyahu’s fear of a coalition collapse, together, may finally move him toward a resolution of the war. This could include a cease-fire, return of hostages and installation of a “day after” transition governing force composed of Palestinian technocrats in Gaza, moderate Arab states and international aid organizations. The alternative: endless fighting, more casualties, continued diplomatic isolation of Israel, a serious fraying of U.S.-Israeli ties — and Netanyahu’s worst nightmare, domestic unrest and disintegration of his coalition.
While Rafah civilian deaths tear at the heart of any decent person, the latest incident may also create an opportunity to force the war’s end — but only if the array of domestic and international critics force Netanyahu to seize it.
Credit: Source link
