For the first time in its history, on October 7, 2023, Israel was subjected to a surprise attack perpetrated by a militant group and not by military forces. The penetration of Israel’s southern border caused levels of insecurity to soar, transforming the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, and with a global geopolitical impact.
In addition to the real difficulties of the conflict, there is a media environment of extreme narratives, disinformation and myths, useful for the respective information operations, and which could mark the future and the next generations. It is essential to analyze some of these myths, contributing to a pragmatic analysis of the conflict.
War is justified by History. The events of the last 12 months are not out of line with the past. There are, in fact, reasons and moments that, due to their inhumanity, serve both narratives. But knowing who arrived first in the region or the eternal spiral of revenge cannot justify the continuation of this “100 Year War” (Khalidi). It is essential to reverse this cycle of violence and remove strength from warmongering narratives.
It is not an existential conflict. It will not be fair to equate the two peoples, given the historical difference, threats and situation in which they find themselves, but both have reasons to fear their adversary. When Palestinians analyze the intentions of the current Israeli government, they conclude that, without the international community, there would be a likelihood of being expelled from Palestine. Military actions in Gaza and settlements in the West Bank help to reinforce this fear. Israel, considering its small population and strategic depth, is particularly vulnerable to attacks – a concern reinforced by the permanent aggressions of the Axis of Resistance and activist proclamations: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Israel is left with the idea that without the protection of weapons it would have already been destroyed.
Netanyahu only seeks political survival. Power is a desire, but the reasons go deeper. They exist early signals evident, such as maps of “Greater Israel”, presented at the UN, promoting a “new, more stable Middle East”. The aim of “defending Israel’s interests” is logically interpreted as a threat by the Palestinians.
It’s just a local conflict. O The Economist recently presented the conflict’s evolution scenarios – and in all of them we identified a high impact on the world economy. The disruption of international trade networks, the difficulty in accessing energy produced in the region and the increased costs of using the Cape route are the most obvious consequences for the international economy, already feeling the effects of “deglobalization”. In terms of security, there are two very high risk vectors. Despite maintaining a conflict of limited intensity, care is required Risk Management, in order to control any possible escalation, vertical or horizontal, of incalculable consequences, in this “War of the Seven Fronts”. On the other hand, Gaza has fueled an anti-Western terrorist motivation, which will impact internal security in Europe and the United States.
Immediate two-state solution. Although ideal, he suffers from several illnesses, so who would impose it? The international political system is in imbalance and competition, without actors with the capacity to ensure recognized and effective mediation. What territory? The current Israeli government is unlikely to remove settlements from the West Bank and Buffer-zone and Philadelphia Corridor in Gaza – which it considers essential for its security. Who would govern it? Only Barghouti is consensual, but he can hardly be considered, and the Palestinian Authority, now more credible, is far from imposing itself. Are there conditions for an immediate ceasefire? With the parties convinced that they can achieve their political objectives, the necessary strategic balance has not yet been achieved – however, it is here that, for humanitarian primacy, international diplomacy must focus.
Paradoxically, the recent traumas experienced by Palestinians and Israelis have demonstrated both the urgent need for a two-state solution and the impossibility of establishing it in the short term.
The tragedy of this conflict is that the problem does not arise from unjustified paranoia, but rather from a solid analysis of the situation, and from each side knowing very well their own intentions and fantasies (Y. Harari). It is time to resolve and not just manage the conflict, assuming that immediate solutions are unlikely, so it will be essential to invest in solid (but agile) processes, supported by a strong and united international community.
