Analysing the Evolving Dynamics in the Israel-Hamas Conflict and Regional Implications

The historical context of the Palestinian flag and its origins is crucial to understanding the current dynamics. In 1948, when Israel was established, the USA was the first to recognize it, merely 11 minutes later. Turkey followed suit a year later, becoming the first Muslim country to recognize Israel.

It’s worth noting that Azerbaijan, a close ally of Turkey, maintains strong ties with Israel, which supported Azerbaijan against Armenia. This relationship presents a significant inconsistency from Turkey’s perspective.

Historically, Arab nations have shown limited presence in conflicts involving Israel. In 1948, during Israel’s establishment, Arab countries were largely absent. Similarly, during the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War, despite having significant military support, Arab nations did not make a substantial impact. Even when the US made controversial decisions, such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017 or declaring the Golan Heights as Israeli territory in 2019, the response from Arab nations was muted.

The evolution of the conflict’s terminology is also telling. What was once referred to as the Arab-Israeli issue in the 2000s shifted to the Israel-Palestine issue by 2005. Currently, it’s predominantly termed the Israel-Hamas issue. This reduction in scope is a strategic success for the USA and Israel and a failure for Arab countries. The focus on Hamas, labelled a terrorist organization by many Western and some Arab countries, has effectively side-lined the broader Palestinian cause.

Turkey’s potential involvement in Gaza is fraught with challenges. While it’s technically feasible for the Turkish military to intervene, the broader geopolitical implications make it a risky proposition. Aligning with Hamas could be perceived as siding with a terrorist organization, potentially putting Turkey in conflict with Israel, the USA, and other Western nations.

Furthermore, historical grievances play a role in shaping perceptions. The Palestinians’ actions during the Ottoman era, when they sided with the British against the Turks, cannot be ignored. The Palestinian flag, symbolizing the nations that rebelled against the Ottomans, further complicates the narrative.

The Middle East’s geopolitical landscape is intricate, with deep-rooted historical contexts and evolving dynamics. Any decision to intervene militarily, especially in a volatile region like Gaza, requires a comprehensive understanding of the past, present, and potential future implications.

Today, the Israel-Hamas conflict, a recurring and complex issue in the Middle East, has entered what appears to be a new phase, distinct from previous conflicts. Israel and Hamas have a history of clashes, with Israel launching multiple attacks on the Gaza Strip. However, the current escalation by Israel suggests a shift in strategy, potentially influenced by external factors, though the full story remains unclear.

In Cyprus, the activation of British bases and the recent arrival of German soldiers indicate a growing Western interest in the region. This involvement is unusual, particularly the German military’s presence, which historically has been minimal in this region. Reports suggest that around 200 German soldiers, are preparing for a potential rescue operation, possibly linked to German prisoners held by Hamas. This development raises questions about the true nature of their mission and the potential for further escalation.

Turning to the Israel-Hamas conflict, the long-standing tensions have escalated since Hamas’s emergence, disrupting the peace process. The conflict has resulted in significant casualties on both sides, with Hamas attacks killing 1,200 Israelis and Israeli responses leading to nearly 6,000 Palestinian deaths. The current situation raises concerns about a potential expansion of the war, with different parties having varied interests and hopes.

It’s crucial to note that the current conflict does not fit the traditional definition of war. Historically, sieges involved surrounding a city to cut off supplies, leading to starvation and desperation. In contrast, Israel’s modern siege tactics in Gaza involve advanced weaponry and a blockade that allows only humanitarian aid, redefining the nature of warfare in the 21st century.

The conflict also raises questions about the ethics of war and the laws governing armed conflict. While Israel is responding to attacks from Hamas, the proportionality and targeting of their response are contentious. International laws of war prohibit actions like cutting off water supplies, bombing places of worship, and targeting hospitals, yet these principles seem disconnected from the current reality.

The situation in Turkey adds another layer of complexity. Turkey’s response to PKK attacks contrasts with the international community’s reaction to Israel’s actions in Gaza. When Turkey acts in self-defence, as outlined in the UN’s Article 51, it faces condemnation and direct challenges, such as the downing of its drones. This double standard is evident in the differing responses to similar situations.

Turkey’s potential military involvement in Gaza is a subject of debate. While technically possible, it would involve complex considerations, including the risk of aligning with Hamas, which is viewed as a terrorist organization by many, including the USA and EU countries. Such an action could be interpreted as a declaration of war against these nations, a scenario Turkey must carefully consider.

The broader geopolitical context includes the evacuation of Israeli settlements along the southern border of Lebanon in anticipation of a significant operation against Hezbollah. This move is part of a larger strategy involving the USA, which is primarily focused on Hezbollah as a significant threat due to its ties with Iran.

In conclusion, the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East is intricate, with multiple players and interests at stake. The ongoing conflicts and tensions involve a web of alliances, interests, and strategies, making any decision for military intervention, such as Turkey’s potential involvement in Gaza, highly complex and fraught with risks.

As a personal note: It’s another inconsistency that those who shout for Gaza today shouted for Azerbaijan yesterday, and the only country that stood by Azerbaijan is Israel, the same country they now want to send Turkish soldiers to fight against. These matters are not as simple as shouting in the streets or directing cheap policies. Therefore, the ignorant should keep quiet and sit down.

Ahmet Doğan

Ahmet Doğan was born in İzmir, Türkiye in 1968. He grew up in Germany and completed his education in the United Kingdom. Following his education, Ahmet Doğan has worked in the insurance industry in London for over 5 years and gained experience in underwriting and risk analysis.

For over 25 years, he has participated in developing and managing public affairs and government relations for projects in various sectors including energy, security, defence and infrastructure. Ahmet Doğan has also worked in collaboration with global companies, international organizations, embassies and defence attaché offices located in and around Türkiye. Apart from his business activities, he is currently taking an active role as an advisor for international organizations, corporations, and government agencies. He is also the founder of the SIGMA (Independent Research Society Association), which is a non-profit and non-governmental organization. Currently, Ahmet Doğan spends most of his time on the SIGMA.

No comment

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir