Israel, Hamas, Palestine And Pulp Fiction
I think most analysts would agree that we are no closer to a sustained, long-term political solution to the Palestinian crisisthan we were before Hamas' October 7 terrorist attack that killed 1200 people in Israel. In fact it's pretty obvious to me that we're further away from a solution. Since Hamas launched its brutal and indiscriminate campaign of fear, butchering mostly civilians, the Israeli Defense Force, IDF, has launched a brutal and indiscriminate military campaign of their own that has now left more than 35,000 people dead, almost all of them civilians. A ceasefire doesn't appear to be anywhere in sight.
Many external forces -- the UN, the EU, the US and others -- are trying to steer this conflict, but steer it where? Everyone (except Hamas and Netanyahu's administration and party) would like to see an end to the conflict, but wishful thinking isn't moving the ball forward. The US and most of its allies are now divided on how best to rein in Israel in particular, with the US trying to privately pressure Netanyahu while only mildly criticizing him in public and many other countries openly condemning the IDF campaign and now pushing for warrants of arrest to be issued against Netanyahu through the international criminal court. Neither approach is working, and there's no indication that either has any real hope of working. The US has only withheld a single arms shipment to Israel and Biden has condemned the ICC charges, while the arrest of Netanyahu might remove him from power but there's no sign that his party would lose control or do anything differently. No one, it seems, is asking how to increase pressure on Hamas beyond what the IDF is already doing.
The solution might be to have the leaders of the US, EU, and UN watch a movie together -- perhaps Quentin Tarantino's 1994 masterpiece Pulp Fiction. Not to spoil anything (it's been 30 years, get off your couch and sit down on your couch and watch the movie, for crying out loud), in the final scene four characters from two sides are in a diner and all point guns at each other while negotiating a deal, a great example of the classic trope known as the "Mexican standoff." The situation does in fact get resolved, with both parties getting part of what they want, neither being satisfied, but everyone being alive (and not on the run from the cops having just shot someone else). The point is that both parties have grievances, desires, and guns, and all parties would like to leave the situation with at least part of what they wanted and, most importantly, their lives. Besides, gun fire is bad for business, a key theme of a movie full of plenty of violence.
When the US, EU, UN or other external parties try to negotiate a peace deal in Palestine, nobody is pointing a gun at anybody. ICC criminal charges are toothless -- the leaders of Israel and Hamas are unlikely to be arrested by anyone even if official indictments are issued. Furthermore, several countries are pushing for an official recognition of a Palestinian state, another largely symbolic measure. On the other hand, the US looked like it was about to stop arms shipments to Israel, but after the Biden administration put a hold on one shipment it then sent mixed messages by allowing several others to go through. Since both Israel and Hamas are dedicated to their current strategies and tactics, what possible effect does any of this have on them that would change their minds?
We need carrots, but we also need sticks. We need a good old-fashioned Mexican standoff. I'm not advocating for direct US or European military intervention, but I am saying that no country to date has been willing to really push any of the parties in this conflict, and no country has been willing to take any risks to push for a resolution either.
Because the United States so strongly supports Israel both militarily and diplomatically they have the most leverage over Israel. The consequences of cutting back on this support, however, could be the empowerment of Hamas or, worse yet, Hezbollah and Iran. In other words, cutting support for Israel without also doing something to hedge against those other threats doesn't really fix the problem since an Israeli war with Hezbollah, Syria, Lebanon or Iran would greatly escalate the risks for the region and indeed the world (not to mention the economic and political consequences at home).
Unfortunately, the US missed a great chance to hedge this bet in 2011-2013, where it could have more strongly backed Syrian rebel groups that were fighting the Iran-aligned Syrian government -- on condition, of course, that they don't attack Israel or supply arms to Hamas. Such a solution would threaten Hamas with losing all military support from the outside, and would threaten Israel by empowering a popular Syrian government and military on its doorsteps, all while removing a key ally to both Hezbollah and Iran, embarrassing them both in the process -- a perfectly constructed Mexican standoff. None of that happened, Syria decayed into one of the world's worst genocides since World War II, Assad is still in power, Hezbollah got stronger, Hamas has plenty of weapons, Israel remains intransigent -- the world is less stable.
These types of scenarios are messy, and risky, and in the current political environment in both the US and Europe, leaders are unwilling to take such risks. But it's pretty clear that without a gun to everyone's head the status quo will continue.
