Why Israel-Hamas War May Degenerate Into Regional And International Armed Conflict -By Olayemi Ogholaja Esq

There is no doubt that the prevailing outbreak of violence between the Israeli and the Palestinian militant group Hamas has left several numbers of persons dead and many injured.

Consequently, there is a need for global intervention from the international community to ensure peace between the duo. The implication of the current happening is that, unless a more decisive approach is adopted, the conflict may degenerate into regional and international armed conflict.

It is pertinent to comprehend the fact that the Israeli and Palestinian Hamas conflict started in the 18th century when Israel was an occupier of Gaza in 1967 during the Jewish settlements.

However, in 2005, the Israelis withdrew their troops and settlers though retained control over the airspace and land border of Gaza. In 2007, Hamas took full control of Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal, and not until the present, the rhythm of the Israeli-Hamas conflict has become increasingly routine with regular Hamas terrorism followed by predictable Israeli- reprisals.

Consequently, following the continued hostilities between the dual, there had been a recent attack on Israel by the Hamas terrorist group on the 7th of October 2023 killing hundreds of Israeli civilians and taking around 130 more hostages to pressure Israel to release over 4,500 Palestinians held in their prison.

The Hamas group had also glamour for the absolute sovereignty of Gaza with the aim of returning all Jewish occupiers in the West Bank to Israel. Following the Hamas attack, the Israelis had responded swiftly with an air strike degrading Hamas in Gaza and had further vowed to continue on a ground operation.

So far, many civilians have already been killed on both sides and if there are continued pressures through the ground campaign, there could be more casualties on the two sides.

In light of the foregoing, the Palestine side who had ever maintained their neutrality since the onset of the conflict have claimed to be the victim of the attack as a result of the Israeli airstrikes on the heavily populated areas of Gaza amounting to collective punishment. So far, there have been several interventions from the international community to ensure peace between the two parties.

While Russia ironically had glamour for a peaceful settlement between the two sides, the United States had advocated for the complete dislodgement of the terrorist group by consistently aiding the Israeli military forces through their military support.

How parties would shield their sword will depend on the measures of resolution adopted by the two sides. In generality, under article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter, the use of force should not be an alternative to peaceful means of resolving the current conflict. Whether this provision applies to both parties will be one of such nature to be argued by the various schools of thought. However, where parties had failed to reach a consensus addendum, the implication will be to the intervention of other interested parties.

The intervention of the other party in this regard will spur the argument about the status of the ongoing conflict. Many may argue that the current tussle between the two is a mere conflict between a militant group in Palestine and the sovereign state of Israel which by implication gives the status of noninternational armed conflict.

Some will argue on the contrary that so far the Israeli armed forces are still in control of the airspace and land border in Gaza, giving the status of the conflict as one of international armed conflicts by which the law of war is applicable in the circumstance.

Thus, the legal remedy that best describes the status of the Hamas conflict is provided for Under Article 3 common to the Geneva Convention, which clearly defines the status of the ongoing conflict as the involvement of one or more non-state armed groups in hostilities with state government armed forces.

The implication of this definition in its entirety surpasses the weight attached to the presumed existence of the Israeli occupier in Gaza. This is to say that the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza in 2005 is evident that Israel is no longer an occupier of Gaza in spite of its control of the airspace and land border. In view of the foregoing, Israel’s involvement with Hamas going by Article 3 could only be given the status of non-international armed conflict.

However, the status might take a different dimension if the Israelis would explore its windows for further attack in the coming weeks and months. The international community might be forced to back off their support to the Istrali side if the conflict escalates to engulf neighboring countries or cause a humanitarian crisis on a massive scale. If this should happen, the Palestinian sovereign state may be forced to retaliate against Israel and this may change the status of the conflict.

Similarly, other reprisals from neighboring countries may arise against Israel and this may lead to regional conflict. For example, the allies of Hamas like Syria Lebanon, and Iran who had been hostile to Israel may likely join the conflict. At this present, Hezbollah is launching an attack against Israel at the Lebanon border as an unpredictable entity, though there are hopes that it can be largely checked by Russia with whom Israel had shown warm relations.

Saudi Arabia may be privately supportive of Israel’s effort to quash Hamas due to the disdain they have against Iran which may likely support Hamas. However, the Arabs under pressure from the Muslim population may support the Palestinian people especially as images from the media will highlight the death and destruction in Gaza and potentially Lebanon. Israel on the other hand will be protected and covered with the protection of the Western nations like the United States and the European Union.

Conclusively, in view of the foregoing, the approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict should be treated with utmost caution to avoid further casualties. Like the American approach, the dislodgement of the Hamas terrorist best suits the adage that says “he that fights and runs away lives to fight another day”. By this implication, the approach to peaceful means of resolution may only be one of a temporary nature in that where terrorists are not completely dislodged, there are tendency for possible reoccurrence of further attack.

The United States believes that the complete dislodgement of the Hamas group from Gaza is the best way of resolving the conflict similar to the approach used against Iraq in the 9/11 attack. The Russian approach for a peaceful settlement and nothing less may likely be a more preferable means in that it may help reduce civilian casualties, but how parties would adopt this approach will be the decision of both sides.

Though the international community had graved a more peaceful means of approach against the use of force, whatever measures both parties may choose to explore must be within the confinement of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and anything less will attract the intervention of other opposing states which by implication will degenerate into regional and international armed conflict.