Ceasefire over: no alternative to violence?
Israel resumed the fight against radical Islamic Hamas on Friday. There have been air strikes across the Gaza Strip and Israeli ground troops have apparently also advanced into southern Gaza. Meanwhile, Washington has upped the pressure on Israel to minimise the impact on the civilian population. Europe's press examines different aspects of the war.
A serious miscalculation
Hamas is to blame for the end of the ceasefire, The Spectator argues:
“Hamas's refusal to negotiate the return of the remaining women still in captivity and an early morning missile attack on Israel brought the ceasefire to an abrupt end on Friday. The Israeli government would have continued to put up with minor infractions by Hamas, and carried on with the deal, despite their repeated violations. However, Hamas's insistence on drastically changing the terms of the agreement pushed Israel to resume assaults in a sign to Hamas that it refuses to be pushed around. Hamas needed the ceasefire, but miscalculated. ... It went too far.”
War as the only option
Naftemporiki suspects that a certain section of Israeli society has got its way with this decision:
“The ceasefire did not end because of any real or alleged violations by Hamas, but because of pressure from certain Israeli politicians and most of the military, who believe that the only option now is to continue the conflict. For them, anything else would be an admission that the military route in the confrontation with Hamas has been definitively ruled out and that other political scenarios will have to be opened up.”
Israel is trapped
Because its weakness has been exposed, Israel is now determined to make a show of strength, observes La Libre Belgique:
“The Netanyahu government has actually allowed itself to fall into the trap of Hamas's cruelty. By promising to wipe out the terrorist organisation, it has manoeuvred itself into a predicament. ... Like any recognised state, Israel has not only the right, but also the duty to protect its population. After the unforgivable failure of 7 October, however, the government seems to be pursuing a war logic aimed at reaffirming an extremely tarnished security pact. As if an outstanding military victory would be enough to whitewash this stain. No matter how many lives it costs.”
Washington is annoyed
Corriere della Sera observes:
“The seven-day ceasefire had revitalised the subliminal movements of diplomacy to some extent. Now there is the risk of having to start from scratch again. In the Biden administration, irritation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is palpably growing. And nothing is being done to hide this - on the contrary, the new American political and media strategy is to highlight the differences. And with a sharpness not seen since the beginning of the war.”
The UN must intervene
The United Nations should stop the violence, the taz demands:
“It must take active responsibility for Gaza. ... The UN doctrine of the 'responsibility to protect', in other words, to undertake foreign intervention to protect threatened populations, has always remained a theory because state sovereignty puts a stop to it. In Gaza there is no state sovereignty. Would Egypt not be in a position to send its army across the border and occupy Gaza in consultation with both sides - as a protective power for the Palestinians and as a guarantor power for Israel? What prevents the UN from deciding on such an intervention? Where, if not there? And when, if not now?”
What kind of state are we talking about?
El Mundo takes a sceptical view of the widespread demands for a two-state solution:
“Before the war, Israel's critics were saying that the living conditions in the Gaza Strip resembled those of a 'huge open-air prison'. ... They forgot that the jailer is Hamas, which took power in 2006 and installed a theocratic government under which there is no freedom whatsoever, and which indoctrinates the population. ... So who would lead the peace process paving the way for a Palestinian state? ... Or would we settle for a right to self-determination that would mean transferring the rights of the Palestinians to a theocratic state or a corrupt authoritarian regime?”