The recent escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, has resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries, and widespread destruction of properties. The conflict, which lasted for 11 days in May 2021, was the worst since the 2014 Gaza war and even worst in 2023 killing and destroying lives and properties amounting to billion in dollars and has raised fears of a full-scale global impacts.
In a recent interview with the Jerusalem Post, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert said that the goal of “destroying Hamas” is unrealistic and counterproductive. He argued that Israel should instead pursue a political solution that would end the conflict and improve the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Olmert, who served as prime minister from 2006 to 2009, said that he had tried to achieve a comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority during his tenure, but was unable to finalize it due to the opposition of Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. He said that he still believes that such an agreement is possible and necessary, and that it would require mutual recognition, security arrangements, territorial compromises, and a resolution of the refugee issue.
He criticized the current Israeli government for its lack of vision and strategy, and for its reliance on military force as the only way to deal with Hamas. He said that this approach has failed to achieve any lasting results and has only increased the suffering and resentment of the Palestinian population. He also warned that the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is undermining the prospects of a two-state solution and is creating a reality of one state with unequal rights for its citizens.
Olmert said that he is not naive about the challenges and risks involved in negotiating with Hamas, but he said that Israel has no choice but to try. He said that Hamas is not a monolithic entity, and that there are pragmatic elements within it that are willing to engage in dialogue. He said that Israel should explore these possibilities and offer incentives and concessions that would encourage moderation and cooperation. He said that this would also strengthen the moderate forces within the Palestinian Authority and create a more favorable environment for peace.
The United Nations estimated that more than 75,000 people were displaced and in need of emergency shelter and assistance. The war also affected the lives of millions of Israelis, who faced constant rocket fire from Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza. More than 10 people were killed in Israel, including two children, and hundreds were injured by rockets or shrapnel. Many Israelis also suffered from trauma, anxiety, and stress due to the frequent sirens and explosions.
The war triggered a flurry of diplomatic efforts to broker a ceasefire and prevent further escalation. The United States, Egypt, Qatar, the United Nations, and other regional and international actors played key roles in mediating between Israel and Hamas.
The war also had significant implications for the regional dynamics in the Middle East. On one hand, it exposed the limitations of the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements signed by Israel with four Arab countries (the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco) in 2020. Despite their rhetoric of promoting peace and stability in the region, these countries did not play an active role in ending the violence or supporting the Palestinians.
On the other hand, it highlighted the influence of Iran, which is a major supporter of Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza. Iran reportedly supplied weapons, funds, and training to Hamas and praised its resistance against Israel. The war also boosted the popularity of Hamas among Palestinians and Arabs as a defender of Jerusalem and Gaza, while undermining the credibility of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is led by President Mahmoud Abbas and based in the West Bank.
Long term implications:
Prospects for peace: The war further diminished the prospects for a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians based on a two-state solution. The war deepened the mistrust and hostility between the two sides and widened the gap between their positions on core issues such as borders, security, refugees, and Jerusalem. The war also weakened the role of the PA as a potential partner for peace with Israel and increased the influence of Hamas as a spoiler.
Moreover, the war reduced the incentives for Israel to resume negotiations with the Palestinians or to make any concessions on its settlement expansion or annexation plans in the West Bank. The war also showed that the international community has limited leverage or willingness to pressure Israel or Hamas to end their conflict or to comply with international law.
The war raised several questions about the future scenarios for Israel and the Palestinians. Will there be another round of violence in the near future? Will there be a renewed push for reconciliation between Hamas and the PA? Will there be a change in leadership or policy in Israel or among the Palestinians?
Will there be a new diplomatic initiative by the US or other actors to revive the peace process? These questions are difficult to answer given the complexity and uncertainty of the situation. However, one thing is clear: without addressing the root causes of the conflict and ensuring justice and dignity for both peoples, there will be no lasting peace or security in the region.
The former Israeli’s PM concluded by saying that “destroying Hamas” is not only unrealistic, but also immoral. He said that Israel has a moral obligation to respect the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, and to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict. He said that this is not only in the best interest of Israel, but also of the entire region and the world.
