On Thursday October 15, 2024, Khaled Elgindy spoke to the Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations about Hamas’s goals a year after the initial attacks and the enduring consequences for Gaza and Rafah. His presentation examined the roles of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the United States in this ongoing conflict.
A Retrospective Look at The October 7 Attack
Elgindy noted that prior to the October 7, 2023, attacks, Israel appeared to feel secure, evidenced by the absence of ceasefire negotiations as late as October 6th. While unaware of the imminent events, Israeli officials were not positioned to anticipate or plan for a retaliatory strike.
U.S. Involvement in Three Phases
The United States response to the October 7th attacks can be divided into three phases. Phase One, from October to January, the U.S. offered "unconditional" support to Israel, rapidly providing military aid with no “red lines” and showing little interest in advocating for a ceasefire. The violence directed at Gaza, already under blockade for 56 years, was intensified, as sentiments like "No innocents in Gaza" fueled escalations. This phase also raised ethical questions about whether the situation constituted apartheid, as some, including Elgindy, suggested.
Phase Two, February to May, introduced President Joe Biden’s statement that Rafah represented the first “red line” the United States set in this ongoing conflict, contradictory to previous assertions. The candid response echoed by Elgindy in regards to the United States’ stance months after the attacks was to the tune of “We’d rather you didn’t, but it’s fine if you do.”, with 44% of Rafah extensively damaged soon after.
Phase Three saw Netanyahu shifting his goal posts, expanding the conflict into Lebanon and Iran, from June to October. The U.S.'s acquiescence allowed Israel to pursue a strategy of "de-escalation through escalation," eroding the concept of civilian protection as Lebanon suffered destruction reminiscent of Rafah.
Why Would Hamas Support A Ceasefire?
Elgindy argued that Hamas does not benefit from Palestinian casualties, with the implication that if ceasefire negotiations met Hamas’ requests, the war would cease. A crucial issue for Hamas is retaining leadership within Gaza; losing control would diminish their influence and strategic position. While not clear if other factors persist that would affect the decision, Hamas’ surrender was likened to suicide, adding complexity to the negotiations.
The Two State Solution
The two-state solution has long been debated without resolution. Netanyahu's rejection of a Palestinian state leaves few allies able to advance peaceful negotiations. The massive exodus following the October 7th attacks saw a shift in Israel’s demographic and political landscape, with a far-right base driving the country's rhetoric.
What was Hamas’ Game Plan?
This is a question many have asked over the past year, pondering whether terror or another motive drove the October 7th attacks. Elgindy believes Hamas’ motive was to issue a shock to the system to change the status quo of the 56 year old blockade. When Hamas initially entered Israel, they did not anticipate the lack of security and “ran amuck”. The freedom this group had due to Israel's lack of security diminished motivations and led to retaliation, one they were unequipped to fight back to.
What Should We Do?
Elgindy highlighted ongoing challenges, including the barring of foreign journalists from Gaza and Rafah, which has fueled misinformation and heightened fear among Palestinians worldwide. The recent killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar raised concerns about the war's trajectory and its humanitarian impact. Elgindy shed light on the sheer devastation in Gaza, describing a region reduced to rubble with no immediate path to reconstruction. The humanitarian crisis persists, and without substantial aid and rehabilitation efforts, Gaza and Rafah face a prolonged struggle to recover.
Elgindy addressed the question “How do you think the added level of social media footage informed global perception of this crisis?” and he shared that it is an inherent “double-edged sword” with the massive influx of videos, commentary, and images changing the public perception of Israel. The instant gratification of the digital world, mixed with the algorithms that drive popular applications, tainted the perception of the gravity of the situation unfolding in Gaza following the months after the October 7th attack. A large topic honed in on social media surrounded the four hostages left taken by Hamas, and he felt the 40,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza were all but ignored.. He shared it makes Palestinians around the world wonder “how little their lives matter” on a global scale.
Elgindy also shared a verified source if members want to donate to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Lebanon. ANERA is non-affiliated with religious or political organizations, and instead works directly to help refugees in war-torn countries receive aid. Right now they are specifically working to aid Palestinians in both The West Bank and Gaza find immediate, and sustainable, relief. You can visit their website, https://www.anera.org/ to find out more or donate directly.
Sources: Khaled Elgindy's speech at the Tucson Committee on Foreign Relations Event on October 15, 2024.
Comentários