It is time for Israel to end its ‘killing rage’

Editorial: The Israel Defence Forces blunder that left three hostages dead is the latest proof that Benjamin Netanyahu’s approach is counterproductive – sapping international support, radicalising Gaza’s youthful population and threatening to spark unrest across the Middle East

The funeral of Alon Shamriz, one of three Israeli hostages killed by the IDF (AP)

Despite overwhelming superiority in conventional weaponry and what it regards as a righteous cause, the war in Gaza is not going well for Israel.

Tactically, the most recent blunder in which three Israeli hostages, bare-chested and under a white flag, were shot dead by the Israel Defence Forces is a harsh reminder of how trigger-happy soldiers on the ground can be. The failure yet to capture any senior Hamas commanders, or disable much of the organisation’s infrastructure, is a further index of failure: the tunnels that have been discovered are seemingly empty.

Strategically, the war is proving counterproductive. As the former British defence secretary, Ben Wallace, points out, the Israeli “killing rage” that the atrocities of 7 October provoked is actually now undermining Israel’s security.

We more than understand that the terrible mass killing perpetrated by Hamas triggered this reaction, but a grand gesture is needed to ensure there is no further backlash and that the poison does not seep out to infect everyone.

In Mr Wallace’s words: “We are entering a dangerous period now where Israel’s original legal authority of self-defence is being undermined by its own actions. It is making the mistake of losing its moral authority alongside its legal one.”

Mr Wallace is outspoken in his remarks, but his view is increasingly shared by Israel’s friends and allies in the West. Pressure on Jerusalem to end a war that looks indiscriminate is becoming intense. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has joined the foreign secretary, Lord Cameron and his German counterpart, Annalena Baerbock, in calling for a ceasefire, albeit only if “sustainable in the long term”.

France has already done so, and voted for one in the UN Security Council, going beyond the usual calls for a humanitarian “pause”. Joe Biden has warned that Israel is losing international support because of its “indiscriminate bombing”. US officials have reportedly told Israel that the scope for conducting major combat operations in Gaza is fast closing.

The American defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, is in Israel now discussing Israel’s options, with the emphasis on rapidly winding down large-scale operations, radically reducing civilian casualties and “transitioning” to more focused and targeted action against Hamas personnel.

So, unless the Israeli government proves unusually obdurate, change will come in some form. It will probably be a change in military tactics, rather than a cessation. The problem with a sustainable ceasefire is that it depends on both sides honouring it, and there has never been any guarantee that Hamas is willing to suspend its war on Israel and its murderous attitude towards the Jewish people.

In present conditions, it may be that if Israel did end the constant bombardment, the use of heavy armour and mass troop movements, Hamas might not take advantage of the lull, for fear of further brutal massive retaliation. That, though, is supposition, and would not outlast the time it took for Hamas to regroup and rearm.

If, as the Americans are urging, Israeli forces continued to enter Gaza to make limited raids on identified Hamas targets, then Hamas would surely fight back and retaliate. Military activity is the default position of both sides, and thus a ceasefire would not last for long.

None of that, however, means that Israel will win this war in any meaningful sense. According to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, he is “as committed as ever” to the use of force. His latest stated war aim is to fight on, such that Gaza “will be demilitarised and under Israeli security control following the defeat of Hamas”. Historical experience suggests that an indefinite partial occupation of Gaza by the Israeli military is even less sustainable than the current approach.

As has been apparent for many decades, it is in the nature of this conflict that even when one paramilitary organisation is in some sense defeated, others will emerge, literally from the wreckage of their compatriots’ homes. Gaza’s youthful population is being radicalised by the cruelties of war. That is not a route to enhance Israel’s security.

In the short-term, therefore, Western leaders must keep up the pressure on Israel to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza, and to conduct the war within international law, on a proportionate basis, and in a way that does not forfeit the support of the West.

Israel also needs to be reminded that this is not just Israel’s war. The dangers to peace are not confined to Israel and its immediate neighbours. Although the conflict has not yet materially spread to the West Bank or southern Lebanon, the longer the war drags on, the more chance that it will do so – and widen even further with Iranian connivance.

Even now, groups armed by, and loyal to, Tehran are carrying out parallel attacks on American troops in Syria and Iraq; and Houthi guerillas in Yemen are launching drones aimed at commercial sea traffic as it approaches the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. Major shipping lines have said they will cease operating in the area, instead diverting around the Cape, causing major economic disruption.

The US Navy and the Royal Navy are firing back at the drones, and thus being slowly drawn into action against these Iranian proxies surrounding the Red Sea. Again, that is a wider threat to peace, and one heightened by the Israel-Hamas war.

That is a further powerful reason why Israel has to wage war in a smarter, lower-key fashion. Because nothing would suit Hamas and their sponsors in Tehran more than a regional conflict, something that would imperil the very existence of the state of Israel.