At the time of writing, the cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas are boiling in a cauldron of disinformation. After CIA Director William Burns flew to Doha, Qatar, over the weekend in a last-minute stop to prod the two sides to keep talking, Hamas announced that it accepted a cease-fire proposal presented to the group earlier in the week. Israel responded immediately, saying that the proposal Hamas agreed to was a significant watering down of what Israel could tolerate.
The entire monthslong process has been about as tiresome as trying to jam a round peg into a square hole. Even committed mediators will find it hard, if not impossible, to do their jobs if the two sides refuse to budge from their bottom-line positions.
Whether the truce talks succeed or officially fall apart, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been clear that Israel will eventually send its forces into Rafah to root out what remains of Hamas’ organized battalions. The only question was when an Israeli offensive would begin. If Israeli negotiators aren’t able to come to an agreement with Hamas, as looks increasingly likely, the operation would proceed faster than usual.
On Monday, Israel’s military issued a directive to 100,000 Palestinians in eastern Rafah to evacuate to safer ground. Of course, the term “safer ground” is oxymoronic at this point. There is no safe place in Gaza, and so-called safe zones have been bombed by Israel on multiple occasions during the war. Most Palestinians will likely adhere to the evacuation calls, while others will stick around and take their chances after having to move two, three or even four times over the last seven months.
It’s hard to overstate just how dangerous this entire situation is. Rafah, the Gaza border city near Egypt, is now host to more than half of Gaza’s 2.4 million people. Most of them are crowded into tents, makeshift shelters and whatever apartments are left. The vast majority of the humanitarian aid shipped into Gaza also comes through the crossing point at Rafah. Hamas is fully ensconced in the city, a consequence in large part of the terrorist group having months to prepare its defenses. At least some of the hostages are likely in the city as well, adding yet another complication to the Israeli military’s plans. How to destroy Hamas while freeing the hostages has always been the ultimate question for Israeli policymakers, and it will remain top of mind during a prospective Rafah offensive.
Netanyahu concluded long ago that Rafah can’t be left untouched. But the question of how Israel conducts an operation there matters a great deal. Any mistake, whether it be a drawn-out fight in the city or massive civilian casualties, has the potential to do a great deal of harm to U.S.-Israel relations. President Joe Biden’s administration remains strongly opposed to Israeli military action in the city if the more than 1 million Palestinian refugees residing there aren’t moved out of harm’s way.
“On Rafah itself, look, our position is clear,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters during his recent trip to the Middle East. “We cannot, will not support a major military operation in Rafah absent an effective plan to make sure that civilians are not harmed.” He added that thus far, Washington had yet to see a viable plan.
Biden’s position hasn’t changed in the days since Blinken made those remarks: “We continue to believe that a hostage deal is the best way to preserve the lives of the hostages, and avoid an invasion of Rafah, where more than a million people are sheltering,” a White House National Security Council spokesperson said Monday.
Netanyahu understands those concerns — he’s been hearing a variation of them for weeks, if not months. Yet at it stands, the urgency of moving into Rafah seems to outweigh whatever concerns Netanyahu might have about how the U.S. would react. While it’s highly unlikely Israel would go into the city without a least a half-hearted attempt to evacuate civilians, there are reports that tents, medical clinics and food distribution centers have been set up in al-Mawasi along Gaza’s southern coastline in preparation for the influx of refugees. It’s also unlikely the Israelis will wait for long.
Netanyahu, after all, has talked up an operation for months and will have to confront yet more threats from his far-right ultranationalist ministers if he’s seen as catering to the Americans. Politically, Netanyahu might not be able to reverse himself.
And yet the politics of the decision aside, we should be under no illusions about how momentous an assault on Rafah would be.
The humanitarian implications could be disastrous. There are nearly as many people in Rafah today as there are in Manhattan. The humanitarian supply lines in Gaza are already stretched extremely thin; to add a second humanitarian emergency on top of the initial one will overload the system and produce more unwanted negative headlines around the world for Israel to deal with.
The diplomatic consequences would be no less explosive. The truce talks hanging on by a thread would be ripped apart, perhaps for good. Israel can forget about getting its hostages back because Hamas is unlikely to hand over its bargaining power at a time when its fighters are being hammered by Israeli bombs in the air and Israeli troops on the ground.
From the very beginning, Netanyahu has insisted repeatedly that defeating Hamas militarily and freeing the hostages were compatible goals. A Rafah invasion will test this proposition like no other.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
