The Guardian view on Israel's Gaza takeover plan: a destructive act that must be stopped
There is still time. The plan announced on Friday is for an operation to take military control of Gaza City, home to a million displaced Palestinians. They will be forcibly evacuated, yet again, to the southern Gaza Strip over the coming weeks. Aid distribution is certain to be a secondary consideration, logistically challenging and woefully inadequate for a population where malnutrition is already severe. The threat to life in Gaza, including to the remaining Israeli hostages captured on 7 October 2023, will get much worse.
Friday's announcement leaves open the question of whether the operation will be extended later to the entire Gaza Strip. Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said this is his wish. The current decision to limit the takeover seems to reflect objections from Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chiefs. But there is no guarantee that an even larger takeover will not then follow. Mr Netanyahu always ratchets up. The sum of his choices amounts to perpetual war.
This is a strategy that ensures, for the moment, that Mr Netanyahu remains in power. But it does not ensure a military victory. It escalates the fight with Hamas without any way of ending it. Twenty months of attacks may have devastated Hamas, but the capacity to mount a limited insurgency remains. Such insurgencies are hard to defeat, as the US found in Vietnam and Iraq, and Britain learned in its former empire and in Northern Ireland. 'Everybody is going to be in this meat grinder,' a senior Israeli former soldier graphically told the BBC this week.
The misery will be felt in Israel too. The plan could be a death sentence for the 20 or so living hostages. It could also guarantee that the bodies of about 30 believed dead will disappear for ever. Mr Netanyahu's decision, in effect, to put punishing Hamas above the freeing of Israeli hostages will agonise their families and deepen domestic political divisions. The strain on Israeli society is already intense, with IDF chiefs opposing the Gaza takeover and arguing unsuccessfully for more targeted operations. Now more Israeli soldiers will die too.
The takeover shows how cavalierly Mr Netanyahu is willing to deepen Israel's political isolation as long as he has Washington's support. Other foreign governments have condemned the plan. Britain said it was simply 'wrong' and 'will only bring more bloodshed'. Germany, Israel's second largest military supplier, put a ban on weapons for use in Gaza, a significant move. In realpolitik terms, however, everything comes down to the US. President Trump should condemn the takeover plan and match the German stance. US allies should insist that he does so. Hamas's allies must be pressured too.
Mr Netanyahu's approach is not merely wrong. It will make things worse, much worse for people in Gaza in the short term most of all, but worse for Israelis in the long term too. His policy is exactly the kind of historic folly so well described by the historian Barbara Tuchman as 'a perverse persistence in a policy demonstrably unworkable or counter-productive'. Mr Netanyahu is sowing dragon's teeth for years to come, and the sooner he is stopped the better.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
As the world hurtles ever closer to nuclear oblivion, where is the opposition?
Nuclear weapons – their lethal menace, dark history and future spread – are back in the headlines again and, as usual, the news is worrying, bordering on desperate. Russia's decision last week to formally abandon the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty banning medium- and short-range nuclear missiles completes the demolition of a key pillar of global arms control. It will accelerate an already frantic nuclear arms race in Europe and Asia at a moment when US and Russian leaders are taunting each other like schoolboys. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has repeatedly threatened the west with nuclear weapons during his war in Ukraine. Last November, Russian forces fired their new Oreshnik hypersonic, nuclear-capable intermediate-range missile at Dnipro. It travels 'like a meteorite' at 10 times the speed of sound and can reach any city in Europe, Putin boasted – which, if true, is a clear INF violation. Moscow blames its decision to ditch the treaty on hostile Nato actions. Yet it has long bypassed it in practice, notably by basing missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave on the Baltic sea, and Belarus. That said, Russia has a point about Nato. Donald Trump first reneged on the INF treaty way back in 2018. The subsequent huge buildup of mainly US-produced nuclear-capable missiles, launchers, planes and bombs in European Nato states has understandably alarmed Moscow. It should alarm Europeans, too. In the 1980s, deployments of US Pershing and cruise missiles sparked passionate protests across the continent. In contrast, today's ominous tick-tocking of the Doomsday Clock, closer than ever to catastrophe at 89 seconds to midnight, is mostly accompanied by eerie silence. Trump's melodramatic claim last week to have moved US nuclear submarines closer to Russia came in response to crude threats from the former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, a notorious Putin stooge. It was another chilling moment. But this puerile standoff will have served a useful purpose if it alerts slumbering European public opinion to the growing risk of nuclear confrontation. Maybe people have grown complacent; maybe they have too many other worries. Maybe governments such as Britain's, suspected of secretly stashing US nuclear gravity bombs at an East Anglian airbase, are again failing to tell the truth. (The UK government refuses to say whether or not American nukes are now at RAF Lakenheath.) Whatever the reason, it falls to the children of the cold war – to the daughters of Greenham Common, to the heirs of ban-the-bomb protesters, to CND's indefatigable campaigners – to more loudly warn: this way lies extinction. Yet why is it that they alone sound the tocsin? It's all happening again, only this time it's worse, and everyone's a target. If unchecked, today's vastly more powerful nukes could turn the planet into a universal killing field. Last week's ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings should be seen as a warning as well as a reminder. The nuclear weapons buildup in Europe proceeds apace. The US already stores nuclear bombs in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. Now the UK, too, has offered facilities – and is buying nuclear-capable fighter jets. Germany will host Tomahawk cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles next year. The US is expanding missile bases in Poland and Romania. Nato countries such as Denmark and Norway have joined missile exercises aimed, for example, at establishing 'control' of the Baltic. All this is justified in the name of self-defence, principally against Putin's Russia. Likewise, Nato's decision in June to raise national defence budgets to 5% of GDP. The global picture is no less disturbing. The nine nuclear-armed states – Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the US – spent $100.2bn, or $3,169 a second, on nuclear weapons last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) reported. That's up 11% on 2023. Under Trump's proposed 2026 budget plan, the US, already by far the biggest spender, will increase funding for its nuclear forces, including the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, by 26% to $87bn. Doing its bit for global insecurity, China has more than doubled its nuclear stockpile since 2020, to 500 warheads. Who can doubt where all this is leading? For the first time since the cold war, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are being transformed into potential nuclear battlegrounds, with the difference, now, that atomic bombs and missiles are viewed not as deterrents but as offensive, war-winning weapons. The proliferation of lower-yield, tactical warheads supposedly makes 'limited' nuclear warfare possible. Once that red line is crossed, an unstoppable chain reaction may ensue. The collapse of arms-control agreements – the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) will be next to lapse in February 2026 – is destroying safety nets. Signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are bound 'in good faith' to gradually disarm; instead, they are rapidly rearming. Dehumanised AI systems may raise the risk of accidental Armageddon. Rogue states such as Israel and North Korea constantly push the boundaries. Trump's impetuosity and Putin's psychosis increase the sense of living in a global shooting gallery. It might have been very different. In June 1945, a group of University of Chicago nuclear physicists led by James Franck told President Harry Truman that an unannounced atomic bomb attack on Japan was 'inadvisable'. Detonating the new weapon would trigger an uncontrollable worldwide arms race, they predicted. Their warnings were rejected, their report suppressed. Now, the UN is trying again. In line with the 2021 treaty outlawing nuclear weapons, a high-powered, international scientific panel was tasked last month with examining 'the physical effects and societal consequences' of nuclear war 'on a local, regional and planetary scale'. The challenge is formidable, the outcome uncertain. But someone, somehow, somewhere must call a halt to the madness. It is still just possible to hope that, unlike in 1945, wiser counsels will prevail. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Southend boys clean beach and parks to raise money for Gaza
Young boys who were left horrified by pictures of starving Palestinian children have started cleaning their local beach and parks to raise money for Zac, 12, Abel, 10, eight-year-old Todd, and their cousins, Koah, 11, and Phoenix, eight, are raising money for Save the say their message is simple but powerful: "We're all kids. We all deserve safety."The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification has said 470,000 people in Gaza (22% of the population in the territory) are facing an extreme lack of food. Earlier this week, Zac told BBC Essex: "Me and Abel believe that no child should have to starve to death."Some of the videos coming out of Gaza are quite horrific."Every kid is a kid, and I didn't want to just keep sitting by and seeing that happen." A video of children's entertainer Miss Rachel talking about the humanitarian crisis on her YouTube channel first sparked the idea for the continued: "We wanted to have a way to raise money so they wouldn't have to starve anymore."The team have exceeded their £500 target and say they will continue their efforts beyond the summer holiday."We've decided we're going to do clean-ups until the situation in Gaza is over," he added."We were cleaning up by Southchurch Park and only in a few minutes we had three bags full." Medics have been warning of shortages in vital food and medical supplies for weeks, after Israel began a months-long blockade of all aid and goods into has since been partially lifted, but humanitarian agencies have said more aid must be allowed to enter to Gaza to prevent famine and malnutrition Nations (UN) agencies have blamed the crisis on Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, denies there is starvation in the territory and insists his country is not blocking aid. Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Marles insists Australia ‘not supplying weapons to Israel' but critics argue ‘parts of weapons are weapons'
The federal government won't follow Germany and introduce new export restrictions to pressure Israel, with the defence minister, Richard Marles, insisting no weapons are being sent from Australia to aid the killing in Gaza. Marles, the acting prime minister, said on Sunday that Australia was not exporting any weapons for use by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), a contested claim rejected by human rights campaigners and the Greens. 'Let's be clear: we don't supply weapons to Israel,' Marles told ABC TV. 'We've seen a lot of misinformation in relation to what Australia is doing here. The fundamental point is that we are not supplying weapons to Israel, and there is no step that we could take, equivalent to that of Germany, which would have any impact in relation to that.' The comments follow Germany's decision last week to halt exports of military equipment that could be used in Gaza. The chancellor, Friedrich Merz, announced the decision on Friday, in response to Benjamin Netanyahu's plans to dramatically expand Israel's Gaza operations, a move condemned by the international community. Marles was asked about Australia exporting armoured steel and, separately, parts for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel previously conceded were used in operations in Gaza. 'We're an F-35 country and we have been that for a couple of decades. That is a multi-lateral arrangement with supply chains that are organised by Lockheed Martin in the United States and have multiple suppliers in respect of all of those supply chains.' David Shoebridge, the Greens' spokesperson on foreign affairs, labelled Labor's statements meaningless. 'Australia is a key part of the F-35 fighter jet program. We are the only place in the world that makes parts like the bomb bay doors and we operate as one of the few regional distribution hubs. 'Two years of hollow talking points from the Albanese government aren't washing with the public any more as we watch a genocide in real time.' Shoebridge argued that, under international law, component parts were considered weapons. 'Watching the defence minister, Richard Marles, refuse to answer basic questions about Australia's export of weapons parts and defence material to Israel is excruciating,' he said in a statement. 'The Australian public knows that the Albanese government is permitting the export of armoured steel, F-35 weapons parts and other critical materials to Israel and wants it to stop.' Shoebridge said if the Albanese government stopped the export of F-35 parts to Israel, their fleet would, in time, be grounded. 'The fact Albanese is choosing not to do that makes us complicit,' he said. Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said Australian exports of component weapon parts to the IDF were 'contributing to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza'. 'Part of the difficulty is that there can be so many component parts of weapons. Some component parts may have been exported to Israel for civilian use but then utilised for weapons,' he said on Sunday. 'The clearer position that Australia could take is that if it diplomatically, legally and politically objects to Israel's occupation of Gaza, then all exports could be suspended for the time being. That would be the clearest way of ensuring that no Australian exports contribute to the Israeli military effort in Gaza.' Rothwell said he 'would not be as decisive as Senator Shoebridge as to his interpretation of international law'. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Guardian Australia reported in November that Australia had amended or lapsed at least 16 defence-related export permits to Israel. A spokesperson said all of the permits were approved before the 7 October terror attacks by Hamas and none related to weapons or ammunition. The ABC reported in April that a remote weapon system designed and built by an Australian company was one of dozens of counter-drone technologies tested by Israel this year. The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, is among organisations questioning the government's claims on military exports. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said Australia had appropriate sanctions in place against members of Israel's war cabinet and would not publicly discuss other considerations. 'What we need to do here is to have very clear statements and actions by the Australian government that make a difference, rather than respond to a slogan on a protest,' he said during a visit to New Zealand. Albanese said the government wanted hostages held by Hamas released and for urgent aid to stop the 'humanitarian catastrophe' unfolding in Gaza. Australia's opposition home affairs spokesman, Andrew Hastie, told Sky that Netanyahu's plan to control Gaza City was 'a very risky proposition' and could add to the humanitarian crisis. 'It would be incredibly difficult for IDF troops to move through and clear. All the advantage would be with Hamas defenders and anyone else who would stand and fight.' The foreign minister, Penny Wong, joined Germany, Italy, New Zealand and the UK in a joint statement on Saturday, stating Israel's plan would make an already perilous situation worse and risked breaching international law. London's high court ruled a month ago that Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was lawful.
