Israeli army sets up new position to control Gaza ‘for years to come’: Report

The position will be assumed by Israeli officer Elad Goren and will deal with 'day-to-day' civilian and security matters in Gaza

News Desk

AUG 29, 2024

https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-army-sets-up-new-position-to-control-gaza-for-years-to-come-report

The Israeli army is planning to establish a new position within its ranks aimed at overseeing long-term control over the Gaza Strip, Hebrew news site Ynet reported on 29 August. 

The decision comes “in the absence of clear strategic goals for the future of the Gaza Strip,” the Hebrew outlet wrote. 

“The Israeli army began yesterday through this appointment to accept the fact that its responsibility for the Strip will continue for years and will expand, and about two million Palestinians will remain under its responsibility,” the report added. 

Israeli officer Elad Goren has been chosen for this appointment, Ynet revealed. Goren is a veteran of the Defense Ministry unit, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).

According to Ynet, he will take up the same role in Gaza as the head of COGAT’s West Bank branch, Israeli General Hisham Ibrahim. 

“This new position is not for show … It will have an important role for years to come … Anyone who believes that Israeli control and intervention in the Gaza Strip will end soon, whether by stopping or not stopping the fighting and its decline, or even with or without a deal, is mistaken,” a senior security official told the outlet. 

The report explains that Goren will deal with daily logistical issues such as humanitarian aid deliveries, repairing destroyed infrastructure, and contacting international aid organizations. He will also lead long-term civilian evacuation in order to “maintain international legitimacy” to continue fighting in Gaza “without witnessing a humanitarian crisis or famine.” 

“On the agenda of the new unit in the Israeli army will be major operations, which have already begun, to evacuate the seriously wounded and sick to hospitals in Jordan, Egypt or the UAE … and preparing for winter in the Gaza Strip, in light of the massive amount of destroyed infrastructure, as well as coordinating the campaign to vaccinate more than a million Gazans against polio,” Ynet said.

The unit will also “work with the international community to restore all civilian facilities that collapsed in the Strip.” 

“It will play a major role in wide-scale civilian operations that will be implemented soon if a deal is reached … the clear return of about one million Gaza residents to their homes in the northern Gaza Strip under the expected monitoring and inspection process on the Netzarim axis … It will also be tasked with dealing with the Rafah crossing crisis, especially in light of the possibility of the return of an international European body to supervise work there as it was before 2005.” 

Negotiations are failing to reach an agreement due to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin's demand for an inspection mechanism for displaced Gazans returning to the north, along with his insistence on keeping troops along the Gaza–Egypt border – conditions which Hamas completely rejects.

According to satellite imagery reviewed by Ynet earlier this week, Israeli forces have expanded the Netzarim corridor in the Gaza Strip to include four large “outposts” designed to permanently house troops. 

Forensic Architecture, a research group based at Goldsmiths Univeristy, also revealed via satellite imagery on 20 August that the Israeli army is building a new land corridor east of Gaza City. 

Netanyahu confirmed last year that Israel is planning “indefinite” security control over Gaza. 

The Murky Meaning of Ukraine’s Kursk Offensive

A short-term success doesn’t necessarily have any long-term effects.

By Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

August 28, 2024

https://archive.is/FGqGi

Is Ukraine’s surprise counteroffensive into Russia a critical turning point in the war, a meaningless sideshow, or a strategic misstep on Kyiv’s part? It has been mostly a success in the short term, but it’s the medium to long term that matters. Does it have broader implications for Western policy toward Russia in general and the war in Ukraine in particular?

The fortunes of war have shifted back and forth several times since Russia invaded in February 2022, and no outside observer has gotten everything right. For this reason, a certain amount of humility is in order. As with most wars, it is impossible to know exactly where each side’s breaking point might be, in terms of either capabilities or resolve, and it’s hard to predict how third parties will react to new developments. That said, I see little reason to think Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk region will have a significant positive impact on its fortunes.

To be sure, the offensive has already brought Kyiv some obvious benefits. It has given Ukrainian morale a much-needed boost and helped counter concerns that Kyiv was trapped in a war of attrition against a larger adversary that it could neither defeat nor outlast. It put the war back on the front pages and strengthened voices calling for increased Western support. It exposed serious flaws in Russian intelligence and readiness and may have embarrassed Russian President Vladimir Putin, although there’s no sign that the incursion has reduced his resolve or slowed Russian advances in the Donbas.

It’s heartening to see Ukraine enjoy some battlefield successes, but this operation is unlikely to affect the outcome of the war. On the upside, the attack showed admirable initiative on Ukraine’s part and an impressive level of operational secrecy, which is why the invading force faced an inadequate number of poorly trained Russian defenders. In some ways the attack resembled the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive in Kharkiv in the fall of 2022, which also achieved tactical surprise and faced outnumbered and inexperienced Russian troops.

Unfortunately, these episodes tell us very little about Ukraine’s ability to gain ground against well-prepared and adequately manned Russian defenses of the sort that thwarted Ukraine’s offensive a year ago. Moreover, the Kursk operation may involve greater Ukrainian than Russian losses, which is not an exchange ratio it can sustain. It would be a huge mistake to conclude that the recent successes on the Kursk front mean that additional Western aid will enable Ukraine to retake the Donbas or Crimea.

This last point is critical, because the two states face quite different circumstances. Both sides have lost lots of troops and equipment, but Ukraine has lost far more territory. According to published reports, Ukraine has now seized about 400 square miles of Russian territory and forced roughly 200,000 Russians to evacuate these areas. These figures amount to 0.0064 percent of Russia’s total land area and 0.138 percent of its population. By contrast, Russia now controls roughly 20 percent of Ukraine, and the war has reportedly forced nearly 35 percent of Ukraine’s population to flee their homes. Even if Kyiv can hang on to the territory it has recently seized, it won’t provide much of a bargaining chip.

It follows that Ukraine’s fate will be determined primarily by what happens in Ukraine, and not by the Kursk operation. The key factors will be each side’s willingness and ability to keep sacrificing on the battlefield, the level of support Ukraine receives from others, and whether a deal can eventually be struck that leaves the unoccupied parts of Ukraine intact and secure. Toward that end, the United States and Europe should continue supporting Ukraine, but this support should be coupled to a serious and unsentimental effort to negotiate a cease-fire and eventual settlement. Unfortunately, U.S. officials seem to have forgotten how one gets even close allies to agree to a cease-fire, even when those states are dependent on U.S. backing and when a cease-fire is clearly in America’s interest.

The Kursk offensive raises at least two other issues, but it’s important to draw the right lessons from them. The first and most obvious lesson is a reminder of Russia’s limited reach and underwhelming military performance. Ever since 2022, hawks have been trying to convince us that Putin was hell-bent on restoring the Russian empire and maybe even the Warsaw Pact, and that Ukraine was just the first step before he launched new assaults on the existing order. Given Russia’s repeated missteps in this war, and given that even its successful advances have proceeded at a glacial pace, can anyone still believe that Russia poses a serious military threat to the rest of Europe? Threat inflators have been using this bogeyman to bolster support for Ukraine, but relying on scare tactics usually leads to bad strategic decisions.

Second, several commentators—including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—have suggested that Kyiv’s successful incursion into Russia shows that existing red lines and other restrictions on Ukrainian operations should be discarded and that the West should let Ukraine take the fight to Russia however it wishes. If Ukrainian troops can invade Russian territory without triggering Russian escalation, so the argument goes, it proves that Putin is a paper tiger and that his earlier threats to escalate (including some not-so-veiled references to nuclear weapons) were bluffs that have now been called.

Such arguments are intended to get Ukraine more and better arms and to lift restrictions on their use, and I don’t blame Ukraine’s leaders for pushing this idea. But the claim that there is no risk of escalation no matter what Ukraine does should be firmly rejected. States are most likely to escalate when they are losing a war; indeed, Ukraine’s decision to invade Russian territory can be seen as a risky attempt to reverse a tide that was running against it. By contrast, Putin has no incentive to escalate if his forces are still winning in the Donbas. The danger that Russia will escalate kicks in only if Moscow is facing a catastrophic defeat, but that’s not where things stand today.

The issue is not just the continuing danger of escalation from an ongoing war. We should ask ourselves whether we are morally comfortable aiding a war effort whose stated objectives are probably unreachable, while eschewing a serious diplomatic effort to end the fighting. The likely result of our current policy is that more people will die for no obvious political purpose. Pushing for a negotiated solution to the Russia-Ukraine war is one of those instances in which self-interest and morality are aligned. The West and the Ukrainians walked away from opportunities to prevent or end this war by negotiation, and Ukraine’s recent military success should be seen as an opportunity to start serious cease-fire talks, not as an excuse to prolong a costly war that Ukraine can survive but is unlikely to win.

Kamala Harris's speech killed any hope she would end the Gaza genocide

Joe Gill

23 August 2024 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/kamala-harris-speech-killed-any-hope-she-would-end-gaza-genocide

The Democratic hopeful has presented herself as ready to continue with Joe Biden's unconditional support for Israel's war of extermination

Any hope that Kamala Harris would condition or suspend arms and funding for Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza was killed by her speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) on Thursday.

In front of an excitable crowd chanting “USA, USA, USA”, Harris deployed familiar language: “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself. Because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organisation called Hamas caused on October 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival.”

The references to sexual violence and the festival massacre have long been deployed as a way to legitimise Israel’s war on the whole of Gaza, which has continued for nearly a year now. 

Meanwhile, Palestinians are raped in Israeli prisons, and Israeli politicians openly say this is justified. Harris, like most US leaders, had nothing to say about it.

She described what has happened in Gaza over the past 11 months as “devastating”, “desperate” and “heartbreaking”. In the lexicon of pro-war liberal politicians, these words are an empty, meaningless facsimile of empathy. 

The words that peace campaigners were looking for were wholly absent: nothing about Israel’s vast catalogue of war crimes - not even a swipe at war-criminal-in-chief Benjamin Netanyahu, who, after all, wants Donald Trump back in the White House. Whichever pro-war candidate is victorious in November, the Israeli leader wins.

Palestinian voices excluded

When Joe Biden announced last month that he would not be standing for re-election as a Democratic candidate, there was a sigh of relief among those who had watched the avowedly Zionist president supply Israel with billions of dollars in lethal aid from day one of the war. Could a new candidate potentially bring an end to Israel’s campaign, which has killed at least 40,000 Palestinians?

The hope was that Harris, despite her history as a pro-Israel centrist Democrat and loyal vice president to Biden, would change the tenor of US policy on Gaza and put some kind of pressure on Netanyahu to come to a ceasefire deal. 

The Democratic convention in Chicago has been the scene of many pro-Palestine protests, with participants saying they could not vote for Harris as long as the Biden-Harris administration continued to supply weapons for Israel’s genocide. 

On Monday, progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was given the job of rallying the left of the Democratic Party to support Harris. In her DNC speech, she said Harris was “working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza and bringing the hostages home”. It left many wondering what had happened to the fearless critic of the Democratic establishment elected in 2018.

Later, she FaceTimed into a protest by the Uncommitted movement outside the convention hall, pledging her support. 

Other progressive Congress members, such as Ilhan Omar, had the courage to join in solidarity with pro-Palestine delegates. She said this week: “If you really wanted a ceasefire, you’d just stop sending the weapons. It is that simple.”

The Uncommitted movement had modestly called for the DNC to include a Palestinian speaker on the main stage, but the DNC refused. The movement ended its sit-in on Thursday as the convention wrapped up.

A day earlier, the parents of American-Israeli hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, who was seized during the 7 October Hamas-led attack on southern Israel, spoke on the DNC stage, pleading for the release of those held captive in Gaza. No Palestinian speaker was invited.

“The least they could do is allow a Palestinian American, or somebody who is directly affected by this war, to speak from the main stage of the DNC,” Rhode Island delegate June Rose said, according to a report from ABC.

At the same time, some activists and voters have raised issues with the fact that the Uncommitted movement has demanded a ceasefire and arms embargo, but continues to wed itself unconditionally to the Democratic Party and Harris in this election. As a result, it is argued, they are conceding all leverage that could be used to show the party that it can’t rely on the 730,000 Uncommitted votes come November.

“It doesn’t give people another alternative, something … beyond the two parties that would actually lead to real change in Gaza,” union worker Jared Houston told Middle East Eye outside the convention, adding that the pro-Palestine movement should “pressure those delegates who have these beliefs to leave the Democratic Party”.

War footing

Harris’s speech, meanwhile, offered bromides to the American “middle class” - that imprecise category that signals to aspirational and hardworking voters that she is one of them. 

“The middle class is where I come from,” she said. “My mother kept a strict budget. We lived within our means. Yet, we wanted for little.” 

Signal to the markets: no generous spending for social programmes. No self-respecting neoliberal Democrat ever mentions the unmentionable: the working-class Americans living paycheque to paycheque.

As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” she thundered, later adding: “I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists.” 

That is the threat behind the mass of US forces deployed to the Mediterranean in preparation for an Iranian-Hezbollah response to the recent twin Israeli assassinations in Beirut and Tehran.

Harris had little to say about Palestine, other than the usual warm words that Palestinians have long ago thrown into the dustbin of false promises from US diplomats. She and Biden were working to ensure that “Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realise their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination”. 

To use the word “freedom” in relation to Palestine may be daring in US political terms, with the watchful eye of the Israel lobby close at hand. But it is a cast-iron rule of US policy that the first clause in such sentences will always be “Israel is secure”, which means only one thing for Palestinians: further occupation, ethnic cleansing and endless war.

Harris has made it as clear as she can that her presidency, if she wins, will be a continuation of Biden’s: war, war and war.

Azad Essa contributed reporting from the DNC in Chicago.

 

Dangerous heights: Israel’s ascent on the escalation ladder

While Israel continues its military escalations with limited options and increasing risk, the Axis of Resistance remains strategically low on the ‘escalation ladder,’ waiting for the moment when the enemy’s troops and munitions near exhaustion.

AUG 28, 2024

The Cradle's Military Correspondent

https://thecradle.co/articles/dangerous-heights-israels-ascent-on-the-escalation-ladder

Following Hezbollah’s recent rocket and drone reprisal, which successfully targeted Israel’s Glilot military intelligence facility “Aman” and the Ein Shemer site used for aerial monitoring and air defense, the other members of West Asia’s Axis of Resistance now face a range of strategic choices regarding their next steps.

Iran has consistently asserted, through its diplomats and high-ranking officials, that a retaliatory response is inevitable. The message from Tehran is clear: a reaction is forthcoming, and it is only a matter of time.

Meanwhile, Yemen is also contemplating its response to the massive Israeli strikes on its main port of Hodeidah. This attack, seen as a disproportionate use of force aimed at inflicting harm on Yemeni civilians and infrastructure, has further galvanized Sanaa’s resolve against the occupation state.

Stepping up escalations

These anticipated responses from the Resistance Axis are influenced by various factors beyond the conventions of military deterrence and existing strategic balances. Central to their strategy is the objective of halting the ongoing war on Gaza, a goal all Axis state and non-state actors have prioritized since the launch of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood almost a year ago.

The region-wide war in West Asia – and the potential responses of each party to the conflict – is best understood through an “escalation ladder,” a conceptual tool that illustrates readiness and capacity for further military engagement.

Israel: Near the top of the ladder

The occupation state is currently positioned near the top of the escalation ladder. Its high placement reflects almost 11 months of extensive use of military assets, including a range of offensive and defensive munitions, tanks, ground troops, and missile systems.

Barring its nuclear stockpiles, Israel has used nearly its entire arsenal across multiple theaters, indicating a high level of military commitment and operational intensity. This leaves Israel with little room for further escalation without resorting to more drastic measures, such as full-scale invasions or the deployment of strategic weapons.

Despite Israel’s substantial military capabilities, its reliance on external support was evident during Iran’s limited retaliatory strikes during Operation True Promise in April. Israel was forced to summon a western coalition and use the airspace of allied Arab states to intercept Iranian projectiles.

This reliance raises questions about the occupation military’s autonomy and ability to sustain operations independently. The economic cost of these operations, reportedly reaching billions of dollars for both Israel and its allies, also illustrates the resource strain of prolonged engagement.

Iran: Careful steps on the first rungs

Iran occupies a much lower rung on the escalation ladder, reflecting Tehran’s restrained, yet calculated approach to direct military engagement with Israel. The Islamic Republic has made one limited confrontation to date, in which it primarily used relatively basic missile systems like the Emad and Rezvan ballistic missiles.

It has the capacity to deploy more advanced weaponry, like the Kheibar-Shekan missiles, designed to penetrate advanced missile defense systems.

Following True Promise, which was the response to Israel’s bombing of its consulate in Damascus, Iran demonstrated its ability to escalate while exposing limitations in Israeli missile defenses. The operation included direct strikes from its territory, breaking a long-standing strategic barrier. This move has challenged Israel’s military doctrine, which relies heavily on missile interception capabilities and strategic deterrence.

Iran’s strategy involves leveraging its vast missile arsenal, including older models and newer, more maneuverable missiles like the Dezful, Haj Qasim, Khorramshahr, and the Fattah 1 and 2 hypersonic missiles.

These advanced missiles pose a significant challenge to Israeli interceptor systems such as the Arrow/Hetz and David’s Sling, which may struggle to intercept them effectively. Tehran’s cautious positioning on the ladder allows it to maintain strategic flexibility, responding forcefully, if necessary, while avoiding a full-scale war.

None of its modern, sophisticated arsenal was used, the number of drones and missiles used was only in the hundreds, and Iran has not deployed any military personnel in a direct confrontation. Iran’s escalation potential, therefore, remains very high.

Hezbollah: Mid-level engagement with strategic reserves

Lebanon’s Hezbollah stands around the middle of the escalation ladder. Since 8 October, the Lebanese resistance has declared over 2,000 military operations, targeting Israeli military positions and assets well into its strategic depth. Despite its active engagement, Hezbollah has carefully managed to avoid depleting its resources, using its more sophisticated missile arsenal, or escalating to an all-out war.

While dropping hints at its capabilities, such as its underground missile facility, Imad-4, Hezbollah has not yet deployed its most advanced or secret capabilities developed since the 2006 war, indicating that it retains significant strategic reserves.

Furthermore, unlike the Israeli army’s ground forces in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Hezbollah forces have not been put in direct conflict with the enemy. Reportedly over 100,000 strong – not including the organization’s elite corps – and with the ability to call on many hundreds of thousands of regional fighters who have pledged to join any direct battle against Israel, these troops are neither depleted nor exhausted, unlike the enemy forces.

Hezbollah’s middle-ground positioning is a balanced approach, keeping pressure on Israel and supporting its allies without exhausting its arsenal and fighting forces or risking all-out war.

Yemen: Strategic posturing at the mid-level

Yemen, like Hezbollah, is positioned midway on the escalation ladder. The Ansarallah-aligned army’s involvement has primarily consisted of strategic maneuvers and support operations in and around its territorial waters, rather than direct confrontations – with the notable exception of last month’s unprecedented drone strike on Tel Aviv and similar attacks on the port of Eilat.

Yemen has made use of various missile types, including Quds cruise missiles and ballistic missiles derived from Iran’s Kheibar-Shekan, Emad, and Qiam missiles. These assets enable Yemen to project power across the region despite the technological and military limitations imposed by the Saudi and UAE-led coalition’s blockade.

Sanaa’s strategic posture is enhanced by its ability to rapidly produce inexpensive munitions and maintain ongoing production capabilities, allowing it to sustain operations without significant escalation. The Yemeni Armed Forces are also ready to step up in support of Lebanon, should Israel decide to escalate further.

Crucially, Yemen’s ideological commitment and tribal social structure provide its political authority with greater freedom to choose targets and execute responses without the same economic concerns or fears of international backlash that might constrain other actors in the Axis.

This flexibility allows Yemen to pursue a more aggressive stance if needed, as evidenced by its potential for launching complex operations aimed at overwhelming enemy defenses, possibly in coordination with Iranian actions.

The only way is down

The current positions of Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, and Yemen on the escalation ladder reflect their strategic calculations and potential actions. Israel’s high positioning suggests a limited capacity for further escalation without severe consequences, while Iran’s low placement indicates a strategy of restraint, keeping its options open for future engagements.

Hezbollah and Yemen, both at the mid-level, demonstrate a calculated approach to maintaining their involvement without exhausting their resources or escalating the conflict to an uncontrollable level.

The possibility of escalation from Iraqi resistance factions or even the Syrian army following repeated violations adds another layer of risk that Israel must contend with.

The occupation state’s continued escalation without a clear endgame and an understanding of its own limitations, coupled with growing US reluctance to intervene, could ultimately lead to a strategic overreach and outright defeat in a full-on regional war.

 

Jewish Terror Has Exploded, and Nothing Is Standing in Its Way. It May Bring Israel Down

Haaretz Editorial

https://archive.is/2URPe

The letter sent by Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar to the prime minister, cabinet members and the attorney general, in which he warns that Jewish terror is a danger to the state's existence, constitutes a flashing warning light.

In any normal country, there would be no hesitation in doing the right thing. They would remove the radical right from the government and instruct security services to treat Jewish terror with the same gravity they do with Palestinian terror.

But as long as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich remain in the government, it will be impossible to fight Jewish terror. As long as the former is in charge of the police and the latter is in charge of the occupied territories, Jewish terror will know that it has the backing of higher authorities.

The picture depicted in the Shin Bet chief's letter is gloomy. He describes a change in the nature of Jewish terrorist activities: "from focused covert activity to broad, open activity. From using a cigarette lighter to using weapons of war. Sometimes using weapons that were distributed by the state lawfully.

From evading the security forces to attacking the security forces. From cutting themselves off from the establishment to receiving legitimacy from certain officials in the establishment."

If Israel continues to deny the bitter truth that a Jewish wild weed that has grown in the territories is now out of control, Jewish terror will bring Israel down. "The 'hilltop youth' phenomenon has long grown into a platform for committing violence against Palestinians," wrote Bar.

He noted the loss of fear of being taken into administrative custody, which stems from "the conditions they are afforded in jail and the money they receive after their release from Knesset members, in addition to the legitimization and praise they receive for their actions. This is accompanied by a delegitimization campaign against security services." Bar warned that Jewish terror could ignite an additional battlefront.

The Shin Bet head also recounted the police's inaction and to the covert support Jewish terrorists receive from the police. He specifically mentioned Ben-Gvir and his visit to the Temple Mount compound on Tisha B'Av. Bar explicitly noted that this "created a very significant risk to regional security."

Following the publication of Bar's letter, Ben-Gvir demanded his dismissal at a cabinet meeting. Netanyahu and other ministers backed Bar, which led to Ben-Gvir leaving the meeting. But experience shows that if his base is angry, Netanyahu will change his mind. Bar has for quite a while been on the list of Bibi-ist and Kahanist targets. In the wake of his warning letter, this camp's attacks on him will only increase.

The person who has tied his political fate to the radical right, legitimized Kahanism, given control over the government to Ben-Gvir and placed the territories in the hands of Smotrich is the last person to fight Jewish terror.

Every day the super right-wing government continues to exist under Netanyahu is a day Israel is sinking deeper into an abyss from which it will be difficult to extricate itself. This government must be replaced immediately.

The above article is Haaretz's lead editorial, as published in the Hebrew and English newspapers in Israel.

Prolonging Genocide as a Smokescreen: On Israel’s Other War in the West Bank

by Ramzy Baroud Posted on August 26, 2024

https://original.antiwar.com/ramzy-baroud/2024/08/25/prolonging-genocide-as-a-smokescreen-on-israels-other-war-in-the-west-bank/

Promises of “absolute victory” in Gaza are nothing but “gibberish”, according to Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Gallant’s comments were not meant to be public, but somehow were leaked and published by Israeli media on August 12.

The explanation of why Netanyahu is pursuing a losing war in Gaza has been largely confined to the prime minister’s personal interests: avoiding the outcome of his corruption trials, preserving his extremist government coalition and avoiding early elections.

Still, none of these rationales explain the absurdity of continuing with a war, which, in the words of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak is “the worst failure in Israel’s history”.

What else could explain Netanyahu’s motive behind the war? And why are his most crucial government allies, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich determined to prolong it?

The answer may not lie in Gaza, but in the West Bank.

While Israel is extending its failed military campaign in the Strip with no clear strategic objectives, its war on the West Bank is driven by clear strategic motives: the annexation of the West Bank and the ethnic cleansing of large sectors of the Palestinian population.

This is not only obvious through Israel’s daily actions in the West Bank but also because of the clear statements made by Israel’s extremist government officials.

This includes a commitment by Netanyahu’s own Likud party to  “advance and develop settlement in all parts of the land of Israel – in the Galilee, Negev, Golan Heights, and Judea and Samaria.”

An audio recording, obtained by the Israeli group, Peace Now, conveyed the following remarks by Smotrich at a June 9 conference: “My goal is to settle the land, to build it, and to prevent, for God’s sake, its division… and the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

To do so, the far-right politician has assigned himself the job of “change(ing) the DNA of the system.” This ‘system’ was put in place decades ago.

Following its military occupation of the West Bank, Israel began a slow but determined process of the illegal annexation of Palestinian territories. This process included the establishment, in 1981, of the so-called Civil Administration.

The latter was essentially a branch of the Israeli military but was designated as ‘civil’ as part of a greater government effort to convert a temporary military occupation into the permanent colonization of Palestine. This entailed the practical annexation and continued expansion of the illegal Israeli Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land after the war.

The Oslo Accords in 1993-94 gave Palestinians nominal administrative control over small areas in the West Bank, designated as areas A and B. This necessitated the transfer of some of the Civil Administration’s responsibility to the newly formed Palestinian Authority, based on the understanding the PA will continue essentially to prioritize Israel’s security.

The new arrangement allowed Israel to expand, unhindered, its illegal settlements in most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, tripling both the size and population of the settlements between 1993 and 2023.

As Israel’s colonial plan in the West Bank reached its zenith, Netanyahu sought, in 2020, to reinforce Israeli gains with the annexation of more than 30 percent of the West Bank.

Due to international pressure and growing Palestinian resistance, Netanyahu postponed his plan, though with the understanding that “annexation remains on the table”.

Without much fanfare, however, Israel swapped its hope for a sweeping de jure annexation of the West Bank with de facto control, through rapid seizure of Palestinian land and the expanding of settlements.

Though the Israeli military is faltering in Gaza, the war is being used as the perfect smokescreen to finalize old colonial plans in the West Bank.

This scheme was dubbed by Smotrich in 2017 as a “victory by settlement”. Now in a position of power and with access to a massive budget, he is making his life’s goal a reality.

For Smotrich’s dream to be realized, he needed to revitalize the once central role of the Civil Administration. In May, he invented a new position called ‘deputy head’ of the administration, granting the position to his close associate Hillel Roth.

Now, both have unparalleled sweeping rights to expand the settlements. Since the start of its term in power, Netanyahu’s government has approved 12,000 new housing units for illegal settlements, while ordering the demolition of thousands of Palestinian homes and other civilian infrastructure.

In the first three months of 2024, Israel declared nearly 6,000 as ‘state-owned land’, therefore eligible for settlement construction. The decision was described by the Israeli watchdog Peace Now as the ‘largest West Bank land grab in 30 years’.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is already under way. According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, in the first half of 2024 alone, at least 1,000 Palestinians have been forcefully displaced while nearly 160,000 have been affected by home demolitions.

The Israeli war on the West Bank has come at a high price of blood. As of August 12, at least 632 Palestinians were killed and 5,400 were wounded in the West Bank, according to the Ministry of Health.

When the war on Gaza is over, the war on the West Bank shall grow more intense and bloodier, but with clear strategic goals of annexing the whole of the area.

On July 19, the International Court of Justice resolved that  Israel’s “annexation and… assertion of permanent control” in the West Bank, is illegal.

To avoid a greater war and genocide, the international community must use all available means to enforce international law and to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine.