The unfolding events since the commencement of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation reveal a significant trend that warrants careful consideration. What we observe has been facilitated, to a certain extent, by the predictable and lukewarm response of official Arab positions. Sadly, even popular support has been emotional and uncoordinated. In some regions, protests clamoring for the Palestinian cause seem almost orchestrated, with a surreal proximity between demonstrators and the Israeli embassy. It raises the question: Are these demonstrations a mere pressure valve for some regimes, rather than genuine expressions of solidarity?
Another factor that demands our attention is Egypt’s role in this evolving scenario. The country finds itself at an economic nadir, tethered by the Camp David Accords politically. Facing a difficult choice, Egypt may have to either close the Rafah crossing to prevent further Palestinian displacement into Sinai or open it, accepting a new status quo. The possibility of a compromise solution looms, with humanitarian concerns necessitating the Palestinian exodus through Egypt. Amidst all this, the positions of the key players remain far from clear.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertiveness in pursuing this project reflects the fervor of Israel’s allies who advocate confrontation with the resistance. A European Union official, in rejecting Israel’s call for Palestinians to exit Gaza southwards, appeared to prioritize logistical impossibility over humanitarian concerns. This stance, while ostensibly humane, fails to address the gravity of the situation.
In fact, certain European positions have exceeded even the Israeli perspective. The French Minister of Justice, for instance, equated support or engagement with groups akin to ISIS, lumping legitimate resistance movements like Hamas into the same category. This raises concerns about the erosion of moral values, seemingly indifferent to the suffering in Gaza and elsewhere.
The evolving European stance is a dangerous indication of moral decline, overlooking the sacrifices in Gaza and failing to acknowledge the martyrdom of a journalist in southern Lebanon. Such inconsistency in dealing with complex issues suggests decisions taken behind closed doors, which might have been awaiting implementation.
Equally significant is the role of the United States in these events. The arrival of the American aircraft carrier “Gerard Ford” off the Mediterranean coast, shortly after the attacks, might not have been meant to intimidate Hamas as much as it was intended to unnerve allies. This leaves Americans to stabilize situations outside occupied Palestine while the Israeli military concentrates on its internal objectives.
Rumours of a regional war looming if Israel launches a ground invasion of Gaza should be analyzed cautiously. Would Israel embark on such an endeavour when it currently enjoys a free hand to act with impunity from the air? Conversely, allowing Israel unbridled freedom would be unwise. We must recognize that today’s developments are more than a replay of past wars; they entail a profound reshaping of the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape.
In this complex context, it is naive to ignore the implications of either action or inaction. We must not merely celebrate the progress made but also leverage it. Success for Israel in Gaza could potentially set a dangerous precedent, whereas failure could usher in an irreversible reality. We must choose our path wisely, fully aware of the profound consequences of our decisions.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.