The expansion of the Gaza offensive

This blogpost covers two issues:

1. The UN’s approach to Israel’s new proposals to reverse its humanitarian blockade which I posted recently (see “The Israeli blockade of aid supplies”) and,
2. Why it makes sense for Israel to expand her military operations to get ready to move into Gaza to seize and secure land.

✲✲✲

The UN’s ivory tower

Why does the UN oppose Israel’s proposals to resume humanitarian aid? 

See details in Amichai Stein in Jerusalem Post (“Israel, US lobby UN to join proposed Gaza aid distribution mechanism - exclusive“). Also, James Mackenzie and Emma Farge writing in “European leaders, aid groups criticise Israeli aid plans for Gaza” (Reuters):

U.N. agencies, aid groups and European leaders condemned Israel’s plans, calling for the aid blockade to be lifted and for supplies to be distributed by humanitarian organisations that are not party to the conflict.

The European Union said humanitarian aid “must never be politicised or militarised”, echoing concerns expressed by leaders including Germany’s newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, who said the situation in Gaza was “the worst we’ve ever seen”.

I think I know why the UN oppose it. Here’s my rationale.

The UN has the very laudable “humanitarian principles” of neutrality and independence. Those principles are said to kick-in when it comes to the distribution of humanitarian aid.

So far as I see it, the problem is that those lofty principles are abstractions about conduct in conflict. They are rooted in a priori assumptions about states as rational & (somewhat) civilised actors that actually care for their native populations.

So, when it comes to the delivery of aid to Gaza, the UN can only really regard the issue through that conceptual lens. It cannot afford to adapt its historic normative framework for Hamas. It has to pretend that they (Hamas) haven’t thrown a huge wrench through the UN’s entire approaches. Pretend as though Hamas haven’t exploited the UN to harm Gazans.

As we all know, the UN doesn’t really have an effective monitoring or controlling system over how this aid is ultimately used and distributed in Gaza. So, while the UN may condemn Hamas for bullying and intimidating aid groups and Gazan citizens – its “humanitarian principles” mean it cannot say that Hamas can’t control Gaza and, as such, control the food distribution. 

Whatsmore, all hell breaks loose if Israel so much as suggests using its military forces to ensure that the aid gets to the truly innocent and hungry Gazans.

For the sake of appearing to be without “agenda”, or “non-political”, or “neutral” etc.; Hamas gets to maintain ultimate and de facto control over the food distribution. And, as we know, if Hamas controls the food distribution; they are strengthened.

And so the UN towers a strange morally inverted world.

✲✲✲

Gaza expanded offensive

From Times of Israel, “Israel okays ‘conquering Gaza, holding the territories,’ as IDF chief said to warn ‘we could lose’ the hostages”:

The official said it will see the IDF take control of territory in Gaza, move the civilian population toward the south, attack Hamas, and prevent the terror group from taking control of humanitarian aid.

The plan is gradual and focuses at first on a certain, unspecified area within the Strip, before expanding to other places, the Kan public broadcaster reported Sunday, adding that the intense fighting was expected to go on for months.

Additionally, the Israeli official said, the security cabinet approved a proposal to renew aid deliveries into Gaza while overhauling the mechanism in order to minimize diversion of the goods by Hamas to benefit its operatives.

I agree with the proposals. I think it is right that the IDF protect the Gazan population and restore humanitarian aid. Although, as I have argued, Israel is within its rights; it isn’t really any effective tool at bringing pressure to bear on Hamas.

There are two more points to make:

1. Israel isn’t getting anywhere right now. It needs to expand ground operations against Hamas. There can never really be any ceasefire deal that cede to Hamas any legitimacy over Gaza, so these 3-part ceasefire deals were always doomed. The aid blockade was not really sustainable or effective against Hamas. At the moment, Hamas have lost their ability to effectively resist. Veterans have been killed, weapons stockpiles depleted, and command structure completely debilitated. 

2. So far, Israel has been negotiating on a hostage to terrorist-prisoner release ratio. This was always deeply objectionable (see my comments on the “principle of negotiating with terrorists”) but it hasn’t given Israel any more (if any?) meaningful gains. It needs to use conquered Gazan lands to squeeze the hostages out of Hamas’ grip. Only about 40% of the tunnels have been blown up. Israeli strikes can only do so much, and the IDF doesn’t know where the remaining hostages are. So, it needs to seriously ramp up the pressure on Hamas. This must also involve depriving Hamas of its tactical advantage of having human-shields. That’s why the IDF has taken the v. difficult decision to move the Palestinian civilian population out of harm’s way and change the rules of the game.