Posted on October 31, 2024 by Ali Tuygan
October 31, 2024
On October 1, Iran fired 200 missiles at Israel. There was no clarity regarding the full scope of the damage to Israeli military bases. It was generally agreed that Iran was “more successful” in evading Israel’s defenses than in April when Iran had launched a barrage of missiles and drones targeting Israel nearly two weeks after the deadly strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria.
On October 13, at the direction of the President, Secretary Austin authorized the deployment of a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery and associated crew of U.S. military personnel to Israel to help bolster Israel’s air defenses following Iran’s attacks against Israel on April 13 and again on October 1.
On October 26, Israel struck back at Iran. Before the Israeli attack, there was some speculation over Israel’s potential targets, the three being Iran’s nuclear facilities, its energy sector, and Iran’s military. The first two would have been a declaration of war and a widening regional conflict involving the US. Washington is given much credit for Israel’s refraining from hitting Iran’s nuclear facilities and its energy sector. However, as the primary customer of Iranian oil, China must also have warned Israel against strikes against the first two.
After the attacks, Israel said that it hit 20 military targets in what it called a limited attack that nonetheless degraded Iranian air defenses and weapons facilities. Israel achieved “all its objectives” in its attack against military targets in Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the next day.[i] Four Iranian military personnel were killed during the attack.
Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei said the Israeli attacks “should not be exaggerated nor downplayed.” President Masoud Pezeshkian said that Iran did not seek war with Israel but was ready to deliver “an appropriate response”. Israel, the US, and the UK warned Tehran against responding. Thus the question now is whether Iran would respond, and if so when and how, leaving Tehran with difficult choices. What might be the right response to show that Iran reacted, but convinced the international community that this was no escalation? Would the Israeli government seize such a response as an opportunity for massive retaliation nonetheless?
A few days ago, Israeli military chief Lieutenant General Herzi Halevi said, “If Iran makes the mistake and launches another barrage of missiles at Israel, we will once again know how to reach Iran, reach even with capabilities that we did not use this time, and hit very, very hard both the capabilities and places that we spared this time.” As this latest escalation of words shows, Israel wants the world to know that it has subdued Tehran.
It appears that the US presidential election and military exchanges between Iran and Israel have proved welcome international distractions for Prime Minister Netanyahu to continue endlessly striking Gaza, taking the Gazan death toll to 43,000 and turning the Strip into rubble. On October 28 Al Jazeera reported that Israel’s 24-day military operation in northern Gaza has killed more than 1,000 people, mostly women and children, according to health officials. The next day, at least 93 people were dead or missing after an Israeli air strike on the town of Beit Lahia in northern Gaza. And the death toll in Lebanon is also on the rise. So far, the ceasefire and hostage/prisoner exchange talks have proved a playact.
The Hamas onslaught of October 7 has been described as a “shock” for Israel. In terms of its violence, it was indeed a shock, but considering the misery, subjugation, and deprivation in Gaza, next to one of the world’s most prosperous and advanced countries, and growing international apathy toward the Palestinian question, a local outburst was only to be expected. Professor John Mearsheimer, a prominent critic of US foreign policy, called the situation in Gaza, “apartheid”. And no wonder that the case against Israel was brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top court, by South Africa whose President Cyril Ramaphosa said that as a people who once tasted the bitter fruits of dispossession, discrimination, racism, and state-sponsored violence, they are clear that they will stand on the right side of history.
Last May, Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), announced that he was seeking arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three other Hamas leaders accused of being responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Later in May, the International Court of Justice, by thirteen votes against two, delivered its Order on the request for provisional measures submitted by South Africa on 10 May 2024 in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip. The Court’s Order told Israel to,
• immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in Rafah,
• maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance; open the Rafah border crossing with Egypt for the entry of humanitarian aid at scale,
• take effective measures to ensure unimpeded access to the Gaza Strip of any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission, or other investigative body mandated by competent organs of the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide, and
• report to the Court within a month on its progress in applying these measures.
The Court also said that it is “not convinced that the evacuation efforts and related measures that Israel affirms to have undertaken to enhance the security of civilians in the Gaza Strip… are sufficient to alleviate the immense risk to which the Palestinian population is exposed as a result of the military offensive in Rafah.”
All of that has changed nothing and those, including myself, who thought that Israel would henceforth be more careful to avoid civilian casualties have proven wrong. Moreover, Israel’s Knesset passed two laws this week that would practically ban the work of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, once again causing “deep concern” in the West.
Is the scope of the Israeli operations in Gaza an indication that the Netanyahu government intends to occupy Gaza for good and send the majority of Gazans elsewhere beyond the borders of Israel? At least, it is a possibility to worry about. If that proves the case, the question will become, “Where?” Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries would not open their doors to tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Syria is devastated by war. Iraq is far from stability, still suffering the consequences of the US invasion. Egypt is the nearest destination for Gazans in case of expulsion from their homes but that would make Cairo a partner of Israel for their ouster. Iran is not an option as this would be tantamount to defeat. In brief, once options for where they might go become clear, the question will be “At what price?”
Only time will tell. Now, the world remains focused on next week’s US presidential election.
No comments:
Post a Comment