Israel is backsliding into militarism

With Tuesday night’s deadly bombardment of Gaza, the door has been slammed shut on nearly two months of respite from aerial bombardment for long-suffering Palestinian civilians as well as hopes that more Israeli hostages would be freed by their Hamas captors. It is a disappointing and sobering moment not only for Palestinians and Israelis but for the wider Middle East.

What has been lost by the Israeli leadership’s decision to go on the offensive is considerable. The truce and accompanying talks, although fractious, led to dozens of Israeli hostages being released, in addition to nearly 2,000 Palestinian detainees. Gazans who had been displaced by Israeli attacks were tentatively returning home, often to buildings that had been left unsafe by months of bombardments. Families in Israel dared to believe that their loved ones held in Gaza might come home and Palestinians were trying their best to observe Ramadan in the hope that some sliver of normality had returned.

Instead, Israel’s political leaders – caught in the grip of militarism and insistence on “total victory” – are backsliding into the violent policies that have characterised the country’s response to the October 7 attacks. Such tactics failed to deliver peace or security for Israelis in the past, and will not do so this time. Instead, they will deepen Israel’s already significant isolation and entrench support for militancy among Palestinians.

The strikes, which have left hundreds more dead and wounded in Gaza, also call into question the bone fides of the negotiation and ceasefire process. That a talks impasse can lead to a renewed Israeli blockade on aid entering the enclave and a wave of air strikes suggests that hardliners in the Israeli administration are intent on further conflict regardless of what solutions are on the table.

No one can claim there is a shortage of responsible and realistic plans to discuss. Such a proposal was presented by Arab nations on March 4 at a summit in Cairo. The detailed Arab Recovery and Reconstruction Plan, which already has European and international support, contained numerous proposals for reconstruction, governance and security. These stand in stark contrast to opaque visions for a Gaza “riviera” or darker projections from Israel’s ultra-right of a territory emptied of Palestinians. Those in the Arab world and beyond should use their diplomatic influence to persuade the undecided of the reconstruction plan’s value both in ending the current war and in bringing the occupation of Palestine to an end.

No one is arguing that making peace is easy and logjams in negotiations are to be expected in such a difficult and complex conflict. Instead, impasses in talks should galvanise renewed efforts to find solutions, not be used as an excuse to launch bombing campaigns. The world has already seen the alternative: a state of perpetual and generational warfare between Israelis and Palestinians, the continuing military occupation of Palestinian land and a Middle East left on tenterhooks. There is a way out of this morass but abruptly ending a ceasefire is not it.