Gaza and Israel, a dead end

Israel's planned occupation of the Gaza Strip compromises as many principles of international law as it raises questions about a solution to the conflict . While this phase of the war is temporary and the fight against a terrorist group cannot be compared to the invasion of a sovereign nation, such as Russia's aggression against Ukraine, the results of this operation are still to be trusted. Unfortunately, this scenario is repetitive in the history of the region: Israel already militarily occupied Gaza and liberated it in 2005, with the subsequent rearmament of Hamas and the culmination of the horror represented by the massacre of October 7, 2023. Hopelessness underlies any operational decision taken, even more so when war, famine, and military occupation were precisely the consequences sought and calculated by Hamas, which used the inhabitants of Gaza as human shields and planned, with its attacks, a martyrdom of civilians that would dynamite the Abrahamic covenants, the greatest possibility for peace the region has ever known. If Gaza has not prospered in recent years, it is because of the terrorists' stubbornness in entrenching the conflict.

Although the rigor of its offensive may be intolerable by the ethical and legal standards of free societies, it is unfair to judge Israel's actions as those of a contender in a classic war, when what it is ruthlessly waging is a fight against a terrorist organization: Hamas deliberately provoked this crisis, created the maximum possible destruction on October 7, and now displays the torture of its hostages, starving and humiliated prisoners digging their own graves. Conversely, it is also illegitimate to equate the criminal methods of a terrorist network with those of a democracy that claims to be within the liberal order. The rules are not the same. For this reason, the images of famine among a civilian population unable to access humanitarian aid are incomprehensible. Considering that Hamas used resources to steal and sell them to the population—of which there is substantial evidence—it is Israel's responsibility to ensure that this aid reaches those who need it most, primarily children who are not responsible for a conflict in which they are held hostage.

It's not easy to fight a terrorist group that takes over a territory, but confusing nation and terrorists hasn't yielded satisfactory results in many recent examples, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. However, it would be easier for Western countries closer to Israel—or more distant, as is the case with the Spanish government—to offer Tel Aviv a political solution, a guide for action, and support to project a future distinct from the constant aggression of its neighbors. Something that, in short, would not be constant criticism. The West must be proactive in this regard, beyond the recognition of a Palestinian state in Gaza, which serves little more than as a gesture for domestic policies—see the Sánchez strategy—and to perpetuate the conflict and the subjugation of the Gazan population to the dark designs of Hamas, of which they are the first martyrs in decades. Israel must be required, like any democracy, to respect the rules of humanitarian law, but not to be forced to trust a terrorist group that could attack its population again. The only method Israel has found is effective control of the Strip , with no reliable alternatives to ending Hamas emerging, beyond lamentations and censure.