Implications of Israel-Hamas War

Dr. Sahand E.P. Faez

Introduction

On October 7^th, 2023, Hamas’ troops entered into the settlement regions of Israel near the border of the Gaza Strip. According to a map reported by the Guardian, 18 towns, villages and kibbutzim were raided by Hamas’ forces. The two sides have been in conflict for the past 76 years. However, an attack of this magnitude has not happened since Egypt-Syria surprise attack in 1973 which led to the Yom Kippur War. Following the raid which left a massive pile of bodies behind, Israel announced an official state of war against the Palestinian group. Claiming self-defense, the IDF began to hit back. That being said, Israel’s main retaliatory act happened on October 12^th, warned the civilians that its troops will begin a raid on the northern Gaza Strip in 24 hours, giving them a short window to escape south. IDF’s airstrikes plus its troops’ local raids in addition to Hamas’ prior attack has left a massive body count on both sides.

First and foremost, some clarifications are necessary to improve the accuracy of argument. One must clearly differentiate between the different stakeholders and actors in this brutal game that has been going on since late 1940s. There are two states of Israel and Palestine, there are the civilian public on both sides, there is the independent militant group known as Hamas, there is the UN which has been endeavoring to be a mediator between the main actors, there are the neighboring states which are more directly affected by the conflict and could benefit or suffer from it, there are also the world superpowers which have their own interests in the region to consider. The conflict that was reignited on October 7^th has different implications for each one of these actors and stakeholders. In the following, said implications will be divided into political, economic, and social (humanitarian) ones and discussed in more detail.

Political implications

The newly restarted war between Israel and Hamas has several political implications for the region as well as for the international system as a whole. First, by capturing the headlines, it could easily divert the attentions from other geopolitically significant events that are happening in the world. For instance, just like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine diverted the eyes from Yemen and Syria, the Israel-Hamas war seems to be doing the same to Russia-Ukraine war. Second, it does put the Arab states which recently normalized their relations with Israel into an awkward position. On one hand, they would benefit from siding with Israel given the economic profits it will bring. On the other hand, they need to consider their identity as an Arab state and the backlash they would suffer if not siding with the Arab side of the conflict.

Economic implications

Right after Hamas’ invasion of Israel’s borders, the price of crude oil experienced a 3 dollar increase in the price of a barrel of crude oil. Even though the market pushed the prices back in two days, the tension of Israel’s raiding the northern Gaza Strip resulted in another surge in prices, this time to a much higher price (91.73 per barrel). Accounting for nearly 40 percent of world’s energy mix, not to mention the high dependance of industrial productions on oil and its derivatives, such an increase in oil prices will have significant spillover effects for the world’s economy and in consequence for the public. Increase in oil prices will open a window for the oil suppliers to increase their profit margin. Among those is Iran which is world’s fourth oil supplier. Being under heavy sanctions on one hand, and being heavily reliant on oil export revenues on the other, these two surges in oil prices, the second creating a higher stable trend, provided a window of opportunity for Iran to mitigate the pressure of sanctions. Hence, negating the senders’ intended effects of sanctions.

Social (Humanitarian) implications

When kings battle, castles remain intact. It is the bundle of straw huts that get burned. Same is happening with the conflict between Hamas and Israel. Since its commencement on October 7^th, thousands of lives have been lost on both sides, many of which non-combatants. Osama Hamdan, the senior spokesperson for Hamas labeled the residents of settlement areas as ‘non-civilians’, and Danny Ayalon, former Israel deputy foreign minister, blamed Hamas for using Palestinians as human shields and rejected the idea of them taking shelter in Israel instead of the proposed desert area in the south. Neither side seems willing to accept their role in the bloodshed. Instead, they are both playing hot potato with the responsibility for protecting civilian lives in times of war. While hiding behind such semantics, both sides will continue to cause loss of civilian and innocent lives.

Is there a way out?

Ever since the publication of the mandate on Palestine, this region has been suffering from political instability which resulted in massive loss of life. Since then, different solutions have been presented for the seemingly endless conflict that has been going on since late 1940s. Amongst them, one of the most practical ones is the ‘two-state’ solution which the United Nations suggested in 1947. However, for that to happen, some dogmatic faulty logics must be ignored on both sides. First, either side’s historical claims to the land are outdated and disruptive to the entire peace process. Whether eggs came first or chickens is irrelevant this late in the game. Both sides are now in the region and they have but two options; one, they reach a compromise and live peacefully side by side; two, one side massacres and eradicates the other side from the face of earth. If the conflict does not stop, the latter seems much more likely than the former which will become a grim and dark point in history.

Second, given the massive accumulated amount of distrust between the two sides, a neutral third party should be formed the decision of which both sides would accept. This third party must comprise of members that are well informed about the situation. In other words, the neighboring states are more qualified to act as mediators than states like Sweden or Denmark which have never set foot on the land. However, both sides keep avoiding the issue. Therefore, this third party does need a minimum amount of enforcing power. Otherwise, the solution will not commence, let alone last. Since both sides have put the other side on the bottom left corner of Wendt’s matrix, a massive united external force is needed to push them both out of this lose-lose game.

Dr. Sahand E.P. Faez holds a PhD in Econometrics from the University of Mazandaran. He is currently a PhD candidate of International Relations at the National Chung Hsing University. He is also a research fellow at the center for the studies of south Asia and Middle East (CSSAME). His area of interest is the political economy of the Middle Eastern countries with emphasis on spillover effects on the civilian public. He is currently studying the spillover effects of international sanctions on the Iranians’ welfare and wellbeing.