الكاتب: kafej

Israel’s response to Hamas’s brutal attacks last month was immediate.

However, it appears that Israel‘s military offensive was primarily motivated by anger and a political imperative to “do something, and get on with it”, rather than evolving clear military objectives, and how to enable post-conflict peace.

Historically, Israel’s response to Hamas aggression is tolerated by its international partners; indeed, it received strong messages of support from the US, UK and numerous Western allies for its robust military response after the 7 October attacks.

Follow latest: IDF ‘close to dismantling military system’

However, on this occasion Israel knows that time is not on its side; as casualties mount international support and sympathy for Israel’s cause starts to ebb away, until eventually diplomatic pressure upon Israel will force its hand.

But, as casualties mount, what are Israel’s military objectives, are they achievable, and by when?

Israel’s stated aims were to seize Gaza City, destroy Hamas, and free the hostages. These goals are yet to be achieved.

Earlier this week, Israeli forces took over the Gaza parliamentary building. Highly symbolic pictures served to demonstrate that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) was “in control” – but of what?

Above ground the IDF might dominate, but it appears highly unlikely that they are in control of the “Gaza metro” – the labyrinth of tunnels under the city controlled by Hamas.

Israel’s second phase of ground operation

Israel has now declared that the second phase of its ground offensive is about to start – and has warned residents to leave southern Gaza.

Relocating beleaguered Palestinians from southern to northern Gaza might isolate the Hamas fighters in the south to enable phase two of the battle to commence; however, is this remotely feasible?

And, such a strategy will inevitably compound – perhaps exponentially – the humanitarian crisis. Support for Israel is ebbing away.

Read more:
IDF warns Palestinians to flee parts of southern Gaza
Netanyahu: Israel ‘not successful’ in minimising civilian casualties

With the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Authority now reporting a death toll of more than 11,000 Palestinians, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza out of control, how much longer will the West tolerate Israel’s aggression?

Already, the international diplomatic language has become far more measured, qualified and reserved.

The clock is ticking and time is running out for Israel’s military offensive. But even when it ends, what will have been achieved?

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Hamas will not have been destroyed – indeed, many would argue that the IDF offensive has been a great recruiting tool for Hamas.

Tens of thousands of lives will have been lost and the full repercussions of the humanitarian disaster have yet to unfold.

And, to date, the IDF military strategy has not solved the hostage crisis.

No military solution to unique situation

Israel might well have thought they had little choice but to mount an aggressive military response to the Hamas attack, but to what end?

All parties know there is no military solution to this unique situation, yet violence has become the default setting for each side’s political masters.

Growing international pressure will – inevitably – lead to a cessation of hostilities. However, for how long?

How will Gaza be rebuilt and a new model for co-existence be forged?

Will any lessons have been learned or is the vicious cycle of violence destined to be repeated at the hands of senior statesmen who, despite their age and experience, appear to ignore their moral obligation to work tirelessly to secure a long-term peaceful solution.

Surely the civilian population – on both sides – deserve better?

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” – Winston Churchill

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was on a brief and tense visit to Germany amid deep differences between the two NATO allies over the war in Gaza.

Erdogan has called Israel a “terror state” and pointed to its Western allies, including Germany, for supporting the military’s “massacres” in Gaza.

On Friday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underlined Israel’s right to defend itself.

“Our solidarity with Israel is not up for discussion,” he said at a joint news conference with Erdogan.

“We don’t owe anything to Israel, so we can speak freely,” Erdogan said, referring to Germany’s responsibilities in the Holocaust and how Berlin can influence its relationship with Israel. “If we were in debt, we could not talk so freely. But those who are in debt cannot talk freely,” he said.

The Turkish leader also lashed out at Israel over its relentless air and ground offensive in Gaza, saying that attacks on children and hospitals had no place in the Jewish holy book.

“Shooting hospitals or killing children does not exist in the Torah, you can’t do it,” Erdogan told reporters.

Ismail Thawabta, the director general of the government media office in Gaza, told reporters on Friday that the total number of Palestinians killed since the war broke out on October 7 has exceeded 12,000, including 5,000 children.

Frosty start

This was Erdogan’s first visit to Germany since 2020, when he attended a conference on Libya in Berlin.

Before the visit, the Turkish leader stepped up his condemnation of the Israeli assault on the besieged Gaza Strip, saying it had “unlimited support” from the West.

He had previously called for Israeli leaders to be tried for war crimes at the International Court of Justice in The Hague and repeated his view – and Turkey’s longstanding position – that Hamas is not a “terrorist organisation” but a political party that won the last Palestinian legislative elections held in 2006.

Since October 7, when Hamas fighters stormed southern Israel killing around 1,200 people, and prompting the Israeli government to retaliate with a devastating air and ground assault on Gaza, the Turkish president has hardened his criticism of Israel.

After the Hamas attack, Scholz travelled to Israel to offer Germany’s support.

This month, Germany announced a complete ban of Hamas activities, as well as those of the German branch of Samidoun, known as the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, claiming it “supports and glorifies” groups including Hamas.

“In our country, anti-Semitism is not permitted in any way,” said Scholz at the news conference.

“I would like to emphasise there are five million Muslims living in Germany and they have a place here,” he added.

Erdogan rebuked suggestions that his attacks on Israel had anti-Semitic undertones.

“For us, there should be no discrimination between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the region. I have fought against anti-Semitism. I am a leader who is leading this fight,” he said.

German authorities have prohibited many pro-Palestinian demonstrations in what they said are efforts to prevent public anti-Semitism and curb disorder.

Uncomfortable partners

The two countries have always been, as characterised by Scholz’s spokesman, “uncomfortable partners”.

Berlin has been a loud critic of Erdogan’s clampdown on domestic dissent while recognising that getting regional power Turkey onside was necessary to tackle thorny issues.

Despite their differences, economic cooperation between the two countries has continued, with bilateral trade reaching a record 51.6 billion euros ($56.2bn) in 2022.

Germany is home to the largest Turkish diaspora abroad. A majority of the Turkish community of three million are supporters of Erdogan.

Erdogan’s stance sparked questions in Germany about the wisdom of hosting the Turkish leader at this time, with the opposition conservatives and even the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), a member of Scholz’s coalition, urging the chancellor to scrap the invitation.

While much of the news conference was dominated by the Israel-Hamas conflict, the two leaders also spoke about the Russia-Ukraine grain deal, which Turkey helped broker before Russia withdrew from it.

They were set to attempt to find common ground on a migration pact struck in 2016 between the European Union and Turkey to stem arrivals in Europe.

Erdogan linked continuing discussions on that deal, which some European countries would like to revive and amend, to Turkey’s EU accession process, which was been on ice.

He also hoped to win Scholz’s backing to revive talks on modernising Turkey’s customs union with the EU, and liberalise visas for Turkish citizens ahead of upcoming municipal elections where he hopes to win back the country’s largest cities including its capital Ankara and Istanbul.

Turkey has wanted to buy 40 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, which, according to Turkey’s Ministry of Defence, co-manufacturer Germany has opposed.

With just over a day to spare, the United States averted yet another government shutdown on Thursday night, as President Joe Biden signed a last-minute bill to keep federal agencies funded through the new year.

The bill was hailed as a bipartisan success — and as a key victory for newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson, who was elected to the role only three weeks ago.

But analysts say this short-term win might spell long-term trouble for Johnson, as he leads a fractured Republican caucus in the House of Representatives.

“Some people believe that Johnson’s success in passing the continuing resolution indicates that the far right in the GOP will go along with the new speaker,” said Richard F Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University.

“I read the event differently, because Johnson has deeply offended those far-right members, and they will now make life very difficult for him and the rest of the Republican Party.”

Government spending is a perennially divisive issue in the US Congress, with many Republicans pushing for greater budget cuts and Democrats often seeking to protect or expand social programmes.

But when the two parties fail to pass budget legislation, the government risks shuttering all its non-essential functions. That leaves government services in limbo and employees and contractors without pay, potentially harming the country’s overall economic growth.

Republicans and Democrats had set November 17 as their next deadline to pass new funding legislation. Faced with the prospect of an imminent shutdown, Johnson offered an unusual proposal: a two-step stopgap bill — or “continuing resolution” — that would allow government services to continue temporarily at current spending levels.

But the catch was that Congress would have to revisit the budget question twice in the new year. Funding for veterans services, housing, agriculture and energy would need to be voted on before January 19, and the remainder of the budget would have to be decided by February 2.

Nevertheless, Johnson’s bill proved to be a successful compromise. It passed the House on Tuesday with a vote of 336 to 95, thanks to the almost unanimous support from the Democrats.

It also sailed through the Democrat-controlled Senate, allowing Biden to sign it into law late on Thursday.

Johnson framed the bill’s passage as “a gift to the American people”, sparing the country any economic uncertainty and legislative deadlock.

“It’s going to change the way we’ve done this,” Johnson said of his two-step solution. “We have broken the fever.”

Backlash from the Freedom Caucus

But the bill failed to wrest major concessions from the Democrats, including the significant budget cuts that the far right had called for. As a result, a total of 93 House Republicans voted against the continuing resolution, breaking ranks with Johnson.

“If we were keeping score — and, of course, everyone in Washington does — this is a clear win for the Democrats. Given the divided government, the Democrats would prefer such a continuing resolution all the way to February 2025,” Bensel, the Cornell University professor, said.

Among the Republican opposition was a group of about 30 self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives known as the Freedom Caucus. One of the caucus’s leaders, Representative Chip Roy, slammed the bill as a “strategic failure” and “mistake” that Johnson committed “right out of the gate”.

“When are we going to do what we said we would do?” Roy asked on the House floor. “When are we going to stand to thwart and stop the reckless spending?”

Critics have noted that the Freedom Caucus is often a disruptive presence in Congress, one that considers members of the Democratic Party as “enemies” and “Marxists”. Cooperation, therefore, is not an option.

Nicholas F Jacobs, a government professor at Colby College, said that scuttling bills like the budget resolution can actually pay political dividends for members of the Freedom Caucus.

“What makes them different is that they do not feel the same electoral pressures when the government shuts down as does every other member of Congress, Republican or Democrat,” Jacobs said.

In fact, he added, hardline tactics — even risking a government shutdown — can actually appeal to their far-right base. “They can still score points when they go on Twitter or Fox, claiming they’re doing everything possible to cut the national debt.”

A speaker from the fringes

Though Johnson may have angered the Freedom Caucus, he retains his reputation as a far-right Republican himself. Jacobs warned that the bipartisan success of Johnson’s funding bill should not be seen as a shift to the centre for either Republicans or Democrats.

“I don’t think we can expect to see any pragmatic turn soon,” Jacobs said. “Democrats relish the fact that Republicans can’t govern at the moment.”

Bensel likewise cast doubt over whether the bipartisan spending bill signals an embrace of political pragmatism in Congress. Rather, Johnson is seen as part of a continuing shift rightward for the Republican Party.

Formerly a little-known representative from Louisiana, Johnson is considered a loyal supporter of former President Donald Trump and a key figure behind the effort to subvert the 2020 election, which Trump lost.

“On social and cultural issues, Johnson is even more of an abomination for Democrats than is Donald Trump, which will complicate pragmatic politics,” Bensel said.

Bensel also noted Johnson’s prominent embrace of the Christian right. In his first interview as speaker, Johnson told TV host Sean Hannity that his worldview was shaped by the Bible.

“His evangelical Christian beliefs place him at the fringe of the GOP, a party that is otherwise known for its religious commitments,” Bensel said. “Johnson’s devout beliefs may, in the end, trip him up if he is forced to choose between them and more pragmatic politics.”

A study in contrasts

Regardless of Johnson’s political and religious leanings, Bensel questions whether any Republican speaker can keep ahold of the gavel in the bitterly divided House.

Just a month and a half ago, on October 3, far-right members of the party led a successful effort to overthrow Johnson’s predecessor, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, after he also agreed to a bipartisan budget compromise. McCarthy had only been speaker for nine months.

“It may be that no Republican can survive very long as speaker in the current House,” Bensel said.

But Bensel and other analysts acknowledged there were key differences between McCarthy and Johnson that may shape their respective fates as party leaders.

Robert Y Shapiro, a government professor at Columbia University, told Al Jazeera that McCarthy was not seen as a stalwart enough supporter of the far right.

“He was not enough of a backer of all matters related to Trump and vigorously denying the election,” Shapiro explained. “He was not a visible backer of the Freedom Caucus and right-wing rhetoric and craziness, and was seen as more willing to work with Democrats.”

He added that Johnson’s dark-horse status as a speaker candidate proved to be an advantage.

“Johnson, meanwhile, was not well known, so without McCarthy’s baggage, and he has been a strong supporter of Trump — and a fellow election denier,” Shapiro said.

McCarthy’s removal as speaker in October triggered a prolonged search for a replacement, one that shone a spotlight on the disarray in the Republican Party.

It took three weeks of party in-fighting and multiple votes for Johnson to emerge victorious. Shapiro said the Republicans are likely looking to project an image of stability moving forward — and that will help protect Johnson’s position as speaker, at least over the short term.

“They also will not boot him since Republicans in the House realise how bad booting him and another battle for Speaker would look,” he said.

Moreover, with the 2024 presidential election looming, Shapiro believes that the rift within the Republican Party has an expiration date.

“In the end, the 2024 election, those divisions will disappear in terms of virtually all Republican members of Congress and the Senate supporting Trump or whoever the GOP nominee is.”

Washington, DC – United States officials have increasingly suggested that the Palestinian Authority (PA) should rule over Gaza after Israel achieves its objective of eliminating Hamas, the group that currently controls the territory.

But analysts warn that the proposal may be unrealistic and premature, as the Israel-Hamas war nears the start of its seventh week.

US President Joe Biden and his top aides have repeatedly expressed full support for the Israeli offensive in Gaza, but Washington has nevertheless offered indications of what it would like to see after the conflict.

The Biden administration said it does not support an indefinite Israeli military presence in the territory, and it opposes downsizing the besieged strip or permanently displacing its population.

But if Israel manages to dislodge Hamas from Gaza — a goal that is far from guaranteed — bringing the PA back to Gaza would face many hurdles, including Israeli opposition.

Earlier this month, PA President Mahmoud Abbas seemed to predicate the authority’s return to Gaza on the condition that a “political solution” to the conflict is reached, one that would include the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

“At several different levels, this is just a pure pipe dream,” Osamah Khalil, a history professor at Syracuse University, said of handing Gaza to the PA.

Why is the US pushing for it?

Khalil said the Biden administration is facing mounting pressure over its support for Israel, due to the atrocities it is accused of committing in Gaza. At least 11,500 Palestinians have been killed so far, with United Nations experts warning of a “grave risk of genocide” in the territory.

So the Biden camp is trying to switch the focus to the end of the conflict, by asserting that Palestinians must eventually govern Gaza themselves, Khalil explained.

“It’s for domestic audiences because there is an absolute absence of political will in the United States — particularly going into an election year — to hold Israel to account,” Khalil told Al Jazeera.

He added that there is “an absolute dearth of fresh ideas in Washington”, leading to a policy of “avoiding conflict resolution and focusing on conflict management”.

Both the US and Israel have ruled out the possibility of dealing with Hamas politically after the war.

How did we get here?

The PA — which is controlled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and its dominant faction, Fatah — was established in 1994 as part of the Oslo Accords, which sought to shift the occupied Palestinian territories from Israeli military control to civilian leadership.

Oslo promised an eventual Palestinian state, but the so-called peace process never led to a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Over the next decade, the PA continued to oversee a limited form of self-governance over the West Bank and Gaza, co-existing with the Israeli occupation that has had near total control over security matters in the Palestinian territories.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its military forces and dismantled its settlements in Gaza, but it maintained control over movement in and out of the coastal enclave.

One year later, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections in a blow to the PA.

With Hamas committed to armed struggle against Israel and the Fatah sticking to the peace process, the two parties were not able to reconcile their differences.

Meanwhile, Hamas faced increasing international pressure, and fighting broke out between the group and the PA. In 2007, Hamas took over Gaza and has maintained control of the territory ever since. For its part, the PA remained in the West Bank as Israel proceeded with its settlement expansion there.

The rift effectively split the Palestinian national movement. Repeated attempts to bridge the gap with reconciliation agreements have fallen apart.

With the peace process frozen, Israel blockaded the Gaza Strip while further entrenching its military occupation of the West Bank with US support, in violation of international law.

What have US officials said?

Operating under the assumption that Hamas will be eliminated by the end of the current Israeli offensive, the US is now looking to the PA to govern Gaza once again.

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf told lawmakers last week that the PA is the “only Palestinian government that has come out of the Oslo Accords”.

“Whatever its shortcomings, it is the government for the Palestinians in the West Bank,” Leaf said. “We do believe that ultimately Palestinian voices and aspirations have to be at the centrepiece of post-conflict governance and security in Gaza.”

She added that “the PA is the appropriate place to look for governance”.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken also suggested that the PA would take over Gaza eventually. He said earlier this month that a lasting peace “must include Palestinian-led governance and Gaza unified with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority”.

Biden and his aides have also talked about reviving the two-state solution to the conflict.

However, Khalil Jahshan, executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC, a think tank, said that, so long as the US does not call for a ceasefire, talking about what happens after the war is a “waste of time”.

He added that Palestinians should have one authority in the West Bank and Gaza — but after a ceasefire and a democratic election.

“But to bring a dysfunctional Authority in the West Bank basically to a total pile of rubble in Gaza, it’s a formula for disaster,” Jahshan told Al Jazeera. Israeli bombardment has damaged nearly half the residential buildings in the territory.

Khalil, the history professor, echoed Jahshan’s comments about the infeasibility of the US proposal.

“Israel has no intention of agreeing to a Palestinian state,” Khalil told Al Jazeera. “And at the end, the PA can’t come back in on the back of Israeli tanks and say, ‘We’re the new authority.’”

What has Israel said?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose right-wing Likud Party opposes establishing a Palestinian State, has all but dismissed the assertions of his US allies, saying that Israel would maintain security control over Gaza.

“Gaza has to be demilitarised and Gaza has to be de-radicalised,” he told NBC News last week. “And I think, so far, we haven’t seen any Palestinian force, including the Palestinian Authority, that is able to do it.”

Jahshan said it is unlikely that the US would meaningfully pressure Israel towards a broader resolution to the conflict anyway.

“This administration proved that it is incapable of showing the political or the moral will or the diplomatic skills to get us closer to that idea,” Jahshan told Al Jazeera. “So it’s preaching it, but only as a defence mechanism for its diplomatic failure in the region. It is not a realistic option.”

Khalil also suggested that the US is not serious about resolving the conflict. He said the US is floating the return of the PA to allay internal dissent over the Western support for Israel.

Discussing future governance, Khalil added, also buys the Israelis more time to achieve a so-far elusive victory in Gaza.

Khalil noted that after more than 40 days of relentless bombing, Israel is still far from neutralising Hamas. The Palestinian group continues to target Israeli troops.

Israeli forces have also failed to free the captives taken during Hamas’s October 7 attack, and they have not killed senior political or military leaders from the Palestinian group.

What has the PA said?

Still, President Abbas, 88, has expressed willingness to bring the PA back to Gaza, but only as part of a broader solution.

“We will fully assume our responsibilities within the framework of a comprehensive political solution that includes all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip,” Abbas was quoted as telling Blinken by the official Palestinian news agency Wafa earlier this month.

But for some analysts, the PA’s shortcomings in the West Bank and its increasingly ageing and isolated leadership make it a non-starter to lead the Palestinian national movement.

Adam Shapiro, the director of advocacy for Israel-Palestine at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a US-based rights group, pointed to Israel’s deadly raids and the settler violence occurring on a near-daily basis across the West Bank, right under the PA’s nose.

“It’s really mind-boggling,” Shapiro said of suggesting the PA as a solution for Gaza. “It begs the question of whether these officials think that we’re not paying attention, or if they’re just simply not paying attention.”