The dark aspects of the deal and the wider situation in the Middle East

The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has sparked a variety of reactions, frustrations, hopes, and emotions. Depending on the position in the conflict, the approach is different. Hope, in itself, does not change the current reality of the region: peace is not an inch closer.

The regional pattern followed over the past 77 years in the attempts to annihilate the State of Israel shows that a ceasefire represents only a postponement of conflicts. Except that the next round will be longer and more violent than the previous one.

The regional pattern also shows that ceasefires in the wars of Arab armed groups or states against Israel do not address the root cause of the broader regional conflict: their denial of the Jewish right to self-determination, the existence itself of the State of Israel as the Jewish national home.

In the region, among Arab countries and groups, the concept of defeat or total surrender does not exist. It is not even conceived. It is either victory or total annihilation and subjugation. While the Jewish state agrees to a deal based on political and humanitarian grounds (the hopeful release of all hostages), Arab militias (such as Hamas) perceive ceasefires as an opportunity to regroup and return stronger at a later stage. For Israel, the debate about the deal is essentially around the issue of whether it is a matter of “ein brirah”, no other viable option, or not. The release of the hostages, alive and dead, in exchange for hundreds and hundreds of convicted murderers is an excruciating decision. Eventually, Israel always resorts to the guiding principle of not leaving anyone behind. Regardless of how long it would take.

Hamas follows a different approach. Israel’s victory over the Islamic Movement is unequivocal. Denying it would mean ignoring the reality on the ground. However, because there is no total annihilation, Hamas feels to be in the position of claiming victory over Israel. This is the way it is sold to the anti-Israel Arab and international public.

Israel learnt the lessons of the mistakes that caused the defensive flaws that allowed the   October 7 onslaught. That event forced and pushed Israel and the Israelis to remember how strong they could be. How resolute, effective, and efficient they can be. The efficiency of its operations against Hezbollah and Hamas, with the total decapitation of their leaderships, including the elimination of Yaya Sinwar, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ismail Haniyeh, shows that Israel has decided to set the record straight again and re-establish its positions in the region.

Israel, the Israelis, and Zionist Jews have also remembered the lessons that history taught them over the centuries: they can rely mainly, if not only, on themselves. Allies have turned and will keep turning the eye on the other side the moment things become uncomfortable.

Since the start of the war, two mantras have been repeated continuously: 1) Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people and 2) it is necessary to set a road map to the creation of a Palestinian state as it is the only viable option for long-lasting peace. If it is true that Hamas does represent the majority of Palestinians, is it so because they oppose their murderous ideology or because of the widespread destruction and disappointing results they obtain in their armed struggle against Israel? If Palestinians feel that Hamas does not represent them and if they oppose its ideological platform, now is the time for truth. Now it is time to prove it. Now it is time to choose a responsible, transparent, accountable, and nation-building leadership rather than a nation-destroying one.

This choice represents the century-old political situation for Palestinians, since the time of Amin al-Husseini and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam. Since the Arab revolt of the Thirties of the last century against the Jewish communities and the Arab families that were seeking a diplomatic settlement with the Jews.

Sadly though, the calls for a stronger armed struggle against the Jewish state are more and more widespread within the population. Regardless of what extremist and armed group claims to be the one able to overthrow Israel. This justifies the skepticism for a negotiation-based settlement of the conflict.

Similarly, the calls for the creation of a Palestinian state become delusional without a total change within the Palestinian Authority (PA), without changing the ideology it has followed since its inception. The PA recognizes the de facto existence of Israel, but not as the Jewish national home. It is considered an incident of history that will be corrected at some point. 

Its pay-per-slay policy, currently under review, proves the warmongering ideology that has been followed so far. So do the preaching of resort to violence, despite the official commitment in the Oslo Accords, the lawfare campaign and internationalization of the conflict inaugurated by Abu Mazen through an op-ed in the New York Times in May 2011, and the abandonment of negotiations. These are all material breaches of the Accords that the PA should be made accountable for. The same standard that is required of the Israelis has to be applied to the Palestinians. The infantilization of the Palestinians will only push peace further away.

The hostages are Hamas’ insurance policy. Their requests to go back to the situation existing before their onslaught of October 7 display their vision. It is hard to believe that the PA, should it eventually govern the Strip, will be able to do so independently. Hamas in Gaza is first and foremost bad news for the Palestinians. Will the deal last in the long term? Hard to believe it.

The Islamic Movement has a vast network of support in the region and beyond, with Qatar, Iran, and Turkey on the first line. The latter’s success in Syria, its intention of putting an end once and for all to its armed struggle against the Kurdish populations, and its extremely vocal anti-Israel narrative and threats to join the open armed struggle “resistance” against the Jewish state, show a new step up in its foreign policy. It represents the peak of a long process that started decades ago.

This regional portrait also includes Syria, which represents an uncertain factor at the moment. It is not clear yet where it is heading. Ahmed al-Sharaa (a.k.a. Abu Mohammed Al-Joulani), its current leader, has often mentioned the restoration of Bilad al-Sham, the historical Islamic Syria. One of the worrisome elements of these statements is that historical Syria includes the areas of current Lebanon, the western part of Jordan, Israel, and the West Bank. Does it mean that al-Shaara aims for territorial enlargement? Unsure yet. Or, would Turkey (al-Sharaa’s protector) use Syria for its foreign policy aims? Certainly yes.

Similarly, this portrait includes Iran and its attempts to re-establish its regional positions and influence following the setbacks of the blows recently received in Lebanon, Syria, and on the domestic front.

These states and groups have always been very clear about their intentions. The error made by Western countries is to not listen adequately and believe at face value what these groups and statesmen say and mean.

In conclusion, the hostage deal is not a path to peace. It is the bell at the end of the round. Just the last of many before and the first of more to come. The region is on the path to a wider and more violent conflict than ever before.