The latter may seem unlikely, but there is precedent. “When Israeli actions alone result in a civilian death toll that the world cannot tolerate, it often marks a turning point in a conflict,” Dan Perry writes in the Forward. “Perhaps the best-known example was Israel’s shelling of Qana, Lebanon, in 2006, killing more than 100 displaced civilians. Outrage over the massacre at Qana was so extreme that the attack marked one of the final acts of Israel’s (totally justifiable) Grapes of Wrath campaign against Hezbollah terrorists.”
The exact sequence of events is still unclear as investigations continue. Reuters reported, “The Israeli military is investigating the possibility that munitions stored near a Gaza Strip facility hit in an airstrike on Sunday may have started a fire that killed more than 40 civilians, a spokesman said on Tuesday.” “Military spokesman Maj. Gen. Daniel Hagari said the cause of the deadly fire in the southern Gaza city of Rafah was still unknown, but that the 17-kilogram munitions used in the attack appeared to be too small to cause such a large blaze.”
Whatever the details of the incident, there would have been no fatalities without the Israeli invasion. The Israeli government has therefore come under international criticism. Its response has not helped matters. According to Israeli media reports, Prime Minister Netanyahu was silent for nearly 24 hours, after which he expressed regret for the “tragic accident” and promised the Knesset that an investigation would be carried out.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported, “The Egyptian army said one soldier was shot dead in a shootout in the Rafah neighborhood, but gave no details. Israel said it was in contact with Egyptian authorities and both sides were investigating.” And the two deadly incidents came just days after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a vaguely worded opinion saying, “Israel must immediately cease its military attacks in Rafah governorate and any other actions likely to impose on Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip conditions of life likely to result in their physical destruction, in whole or in part.”
The ICJ ruling (which Israel and the US strongly oppose), the deaths in Rafah, and the Egyptian shift all collectively reinforce the impression of recklessness, disorganization, and arrogance in a military operation already criticized for the lack of a viable strategic plan. Despite repeated warnings about Israel’s obligation to minimize civilian casualties and to refrain from an all-out invasion of the densely populated city of Rafah (which would have displaced nearly a million people), Netanyahu’s war efforts are growing increasingly hostile. Already domestic opposition is mobilizing.
Opposition leaders Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid and Yisrael Beitenu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman met with New Hope Chairman Gideon Sa’ar on Wednesday to “discuss forming an alternative government,” according to The Jerusalem Post. “Opposition sources say the three parties are taking steps to topple the government and form a new one by combining the different parties.” They also plan to include war cabinet member Benny Gantz, who has vowed to quit the emergency government and pull centrist parties out of Netanyahu’s coalition government if a cleanup plan is not in place by June 8.
In short, Prime Minister Netanyahu faces intense and harsh criticism from all sides: the international community, the Biden administration, members of the U.S. Congress, current and retired Israeli military personnel, and mass protests that have generated growing hostility toward the Prime Minister. While the criticism comes from different sources, the complaints are largely the same (no strategic plan, insufficient focus on the hostages, insufficient consideration for the large number of civilian casualties, drawing international condemnation, vile public comments that have generated international legal action, etc.). This criticism has intensified in the aftermath of recent civilian disasters and may help tip the tide in favor of a ceasefire.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s initial response was very cautious, disappointing critics who imagined that President Biden could rein in the Netanyahu government. A National Security Council spokesman initially called the deaths “heartbreaking” and stressed that “Israel must take every precaution to protect civilians.” White House press secretary John Kirby later claimed that the administration had seen no evidence that any incident had occurred that would violate Biden’s red line (full-scale invasion). While this response may not have been enough for many critics, by refraining from a more vocal public condemnation, the Biden team has preserved the opportunity for intense behind-the-scenes efforts (alongside a now more united Israeli opposition) and left the door open for later discussions of the Saudi peace plan.
Israel is inextricably approaching an inflection point. Domestic and international anger over Israel’s grave errors and strategic confusion, concerns that the Israeli military is “stretched thin,” and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s fears of the coalition collapsing may finally push him toward a war solution. This could include a ceasefire, the return of hostages, and the installation of a “tomorrow’s” transitional governing force made up of Palestinian technocrats in Gaza, moderate Arab countries, and international aid organizations. The alternative is endless fighting, more casualties, continued diplomatic isolation for Israel, a serious fraying of U.S.-Israeli relations, and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s worst nightmare: internal chaos and the collapse of the coalition.
The civilian deaths in Rafah should break the heart of any sensible person, but this incident could create an opportunity to end the war — but only if critics at home and abroad force Prime Minister Netanyahu to seize it.
