Gaza Deal: Will It Be “True Glory”?

(To Antonio Li Gobbi)
17/01/25

“Was it true glory?” Manzoni wondered about the Great Course, demanding “Let posterity decide”. I think that posterity has certainly decreed the “true” glory of Napoleon.

Instead, what will "our" descendants say about the much-trumpeted agreement that should see the light of day in these days between Israel and Hamas with exceptional witnesses such as Biden and Trump?

We are seeing a lot of enthusiasm in the Western press for this latest Israel-Hamas agreement. An “agreement” that could however be above all the umpteenth concession to terrorism.

The agreement appears to include, in addition to a 6-week ceasefire, the withdrawal of the IDF from areas of high security importance (such as the Philadelphia Corridor, which separates the southern Strip from Egypt, and the Netzarim Corridor, which cuts the Strip in half), the granting of freedom to approximately 1.200 prisoners for terrorism reasons, including many serving life sentences, in exchange for the release, with an eyedropper, of only a minimal part of the hostages (in this case 33, although it is not known whether they are still alive; out of a hundred, it seems 98, who should still be in the hands of Hamas). Israeli hostages, let us remember, of which the Hamas "terrorists" (let's call them by their name) refuse to communicate how many and which are still alive.

Above all, however, the agreement would give Hamas a time frame to reorganize and acquire new forces.

The entire philosophy of the Israel-Hamas agreements (temporary ceasefires with temporary IDF withdrawals and the release of thousands of prisoners in exchange for very few released hostages) represents a constant victory for terrorism, the demonstration that resorting to massacres of defenseless civilians and hostage-taking pays off.. It pays in military terms (because the IDF must regularly withdraw from previously “cleared” areas), allowing Hamas to take back control), pays in terms of internal support within the Palestinian sphere (as it has so far led to the release of many thousands of Palestinian prisoners) and unfortunately also pays in terms of international support. It pays on the international stage as an international community short-sighted and cowardly continues to push for a ceasefire at any cost. He does it for his own peace of mind and also for his markets, without wanting to recall the events of October 7, putting on the same level the terrorists of Hamas and the Israeli government (whose actions can be criticized a lot, but which has nothing to do with terrorist actions or attempted “genocides”).

It should be noted that this dynamic is not new in the confrontation between Israel and its many enemies. Israel has always been willing to grant the release of impressive numbers of prisoners in exchange for the release of even a single hostage or for the return of the remains of killed hostages. We recall the sensational case in 2011 of the exchange for the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (captured in 2006) which led to the release of about a thousand Palestinian prisoners, including Yahya Sinwar, in prison for the killing of many IDF soldiers. The very Sinwar who twelve years later would become the ruthless military leader of Hamas who led and planned the massacre of October 7.

The kidnappers play on the importance that Israel (for cultural and religious reasons) attributes to its citizens taken hostage. It depends on the great value attributed in Israel to human life, which makes the Israeli community de facto unique in the Middle East. A unique civilization, certainly, but It cannot but also represent a vulnerability in dealing with those who do not have a similar sensitivity towards their own community. Consider, in this regard, the planned exposure of the civilian population of Gaza to Israeli military action, knowingly used as a "human shield". A choice desired by Hamas, both to impose limits on the action of the IDF and to have "civilian" victims to show to the international media and to acquire, with their innocent blood, the support of the international community.

Surely even in Jerusalem people realize that among the thousands of Palestinian prisoners released from Israeli jails to obtain the liberation of a limited number of hostages, there will inevitably be the brains and executors of the probable "7th October" of the future. However, popular pressure and national sensitivity push to continue with a policy of concessions that will continue to make the State of the Star of David vulnerable. Ultimately, it is understandable. Also understandable because Netanyahu's government is supported by a fragile and heterogeneous majority and because Western pressure (both US and European) is pushing Jerusalem for an agreement under any conditions. In short, Netanyahu, even if he wanted to, would not have the strength today to resist both internal and external pressure (essentially from Washington) and impose an uncompromising line on the release of the hostages in the negotiations with Hamas.

Less understandable to me, however, are the enthusiasms of our country. and not only because it is yet another fragile, ambiguous agreement, which everyone can try to interpret as they see fit and which could be very short-lived. In fact, for Israel, border security can only be achieved by eliminating Hamas as the political entity that governs the Strip, while for the Hamas leadership, the mere survival of the Jewish State continues to be perceived as an intolerable shame and they will continue to want its total destruction.

In short, even if the agreement goes through, it will be a ceasefire that, after the wounds of October 7 and the suffering of months and months of war in Gaza, it will hardly be able to evolve into a real peace process and, above all, into mutual recognition between the parties.

As we have seen many times in the past in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is likely that in the end the agreement will not translate into the first step towards a peace that seems far away, but only into a "stop to catch your breath". A temporary stop that could benefit above all Hamas, which has suffered significant losses on the military level and will have the opportunity both to replenish its personnel (with the released prisoners) and reorganize both to “sell” the agreement to the Gazans as a success of his terrorist line.

This is a temporary stop that will also be taken advantage of, albeit to a lesser extent, by Israel, whose armed forces, with a significant component of reservists, are not structured to sustain such prolonged war commitments and whose economy is suffering due to the prolonged absence of the aforementioned reservists from their jobs.

The main problem, however, is that this agreement, like the previous ones, not only does not protect the lives of the hostages (of which only a small part could be released soon) but above all confirms the attitude of the Western world (of which Israel is culturally a part) to always give in to blackmail, to surrender to violence and confirms the attitude of the Western ruling classes (in Europe and the USA) to be willing to rejoice over agreements that are potentially suicidal for the sole purpose of being able to flaunt a momentary success to their own electorate.

The agreement will inevitably be perceived by the Palestinian community as a concession to Hamas, a perception that will also make it more difficult for the PA to assume a real political role in both Gaza and the West Bank in the future. If results are achieved through Hamas' methods, why should the Palestinians follow the PA's more negotiating approach?

Let's get to the point.

Europe politically completely absent in a crisis that since October 2023 has affected Israel, Iran, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, commercial traffic through Suez. All on our doorstep!

For decades, European countries have lost credibility and authority in dealing with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa (and the resounding “good riddance” that the Sahel countries have been giving France in recent years is only the most recent demonstration of this).

Also jarring is the “timely” offer by our Foreign Minister to participate in a hypothetical UN mission whose mandate and structure are currently unknown (i.e.: “the important thing is to be present, to do what doesn't matter")

The US has certainly been very committed. Blinken's "shuttle diplomacy" (about fifteen trips to Israel since the beginning of the crisis) has been decidedly more frenetic than what we remember from Kissinger. However, it was also decidedly less effective. The US (especially after the mistakes of the Bush Jr., Obama and Biden administrations) counts less in the Middle East than it once did.

Now the final pressure on the parties to reach whatever agreement they may have before the start of Trump's second presidency appears yet another search for publicity at the expense of Israel's future. Both the outgoing and incoming presidents are competing to take credit for it. An undignified spectacle for what, after the Soviet collapse, had become “the” superpower and which now seems to have returned to being just “one of the” superpowers.

In short, we all hope that all the hostages will return to their families as soon as possible (possibly alive), that the fighting will end as soon as possible in Gaza and that the civilian population of the Strip will be able to return to a normal life and that talks aimed at mutual recognition between Palestinians and Israelis will be able to begin. But will this agreement, as it has been conceived, really be able to make a difference in the desired direction?

I wish I was wrong, but I'm afraid not.

In the West, everyone is happy and new 7 October they are preparing (and it is not certain that they will only happen to the detriment of Israel!).

The happy little orchestra continues to play carefree on the Titanic...

Photo: IDF