Hear
More than seven months after the October 7 attacks that sparked the war in Gaza, global public opinion appears to have turned a corner. The initial solidarity that Israel gained after the Hamas attack gave way to widespread protests and harsh criticism, even from traditionally allied countries.
On the ground, most of the Israeli hostages who were kidnapped by Hamas remain missing, while the military leaders of that Palestinian Islamist group – such as Yahya Sinwar – have hidden underground to avoid the strong military offensive ordered by the government of the first Israeli Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on the Strip.
On the surface, however, more than a million Palestinians have been displaced and more than 35,000 have died, according to Gaza health authorities, as a result of an Israeli offensive that has reduced much of the Strip to rubble.
This led – among other things – to protests in universities and streets in several cities around the world; the recognition of the Palestinian state by European nations such as Spain, Norway and Ireland, and legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), in which Israel is accused of genocide, as well as as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Pinkas, who was also Israel’s ambassador and consul general in New York, is one of the voices critical of the way the war has been conducted and, in this conversation, warns that if Netanyahu maintains current policies his country will be increasingly isolated.
Israel received support from much of the world after Hamas killed 1,200 people and kidnapped more than 200 during its October 7 attack. However, seven months later that support appears to have disappeared. Many see Israel more as the aggressor than the victim. What happened?
Well, two things happened. The first was the disproportionate military retaliation carried out by Israel. I can understand the reasons, I can even justify the feeling, but the disproportionality continued for too long and before you knew it – 3 or 4 weeks after October 7 – the world was exposed to scenes of destruction, carnage and civilian deaths indiscriminate attacks on Gaza, followed by a major Israeli ground incursion into northern Gaza.
And suddenly people began to forget what caused this and what Hamas did on October 7, and what they saw every day was the Israeli destruction of Gaza. That’s what has changed public opinion.
The second thing that happened is that as time went on, people were reminded of the conditions that existed even before October 7 – what people think of as a ruthless Israeli occupation of the West Bank and a siege on Gaza – and People, particularly the most politically involved people, saw this as further proof and vindication that Israel is a colonial power that totally disregards Palestinian lives and hopes.
So, you add the two together and you get a major shift in global public opinion. The Israeli government disagrees with the idea that it is waging this war disproportionately. Do you consider this a disproportionate war?
Well, I think it could have been handled more intelligently, and that is the essence of the American criticism of Israel: that while the war itself is a just war and the use of military means is justified, the scope, the scale and duration have been excessive.
If Israel had managed, after two, maybe three months, to completely destroy Hamas while trying to minimize – I don’t even say succeeding, but at least seriously and sincerely trying to minimize – civilian deaths, then I think the world would be critical, but tolerant of what had happened.
The truth is that it has been almost eight months and there is no end in sight. So, yes, in terms of how Israel employed military force, I agree with that.
South Africa has taken Israel to the ICJ, Turkey has suspended bilateral trade, the UN General Assembly has pushed for the recognition of a Palestinian state, there are protests in many cities and universities against Israel and even the US government made a pause in the delivery of some weapons. And now, the ICC prosecutor has requested an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant.
Is Israel at risk of becoming a pariah state?
That depends on Israel, it depends on whether there is a change in policy. As long as this government is in power and Netanyahu is prime minister, I don’t see how politics will change.
I don’t think South Africa will be successful at the ICJ because they are arguing that this is genocide and to prove that you have to prove that there was an intention to commit genocide and that is going to be extraordinarily difficult.
However, if you take all the issues you raised and connect all the dots, then a bleak picture is presented of a country that is not yet a pariah, but is increasingly isolated and singled out.
You recently said that Israel was becoming a pariah in slow motion…
Correct. If the policies persist, if this policy trajectory persists, that is unfortunately the path we are headed down.
What are the factors that are contributing to Israel’s isolation?
Well, politics.
The fact that Israel does not have and, in fact, has refused to present a post-war Gaza policy; the fact that Israel said it would not stay in Gaza, but the fact that it will stay in Gaza; the fact that Israel is not following US advice.
You add all these things together and you see the process – what you call – of becoming an outcast in slow motion.
Well, that was a quote of his. Netanyahu has said Israel will press ahead with the war even if she needs to go it alone…
That’s silly. You can’t do it alone. That’s him being arrogant, but at the same time incapable.
He knows that it cannot be done and he says it for internal consumption in Israel.
The only reasons he says this is for political reasons.
Are you worried about long-term damage to Israel’s image in the world?
Yes a lot. I think the Americans, Secretary of State – Antony Blinken – warned Israel that it is causing generational damage to its own reputation and brand.
You mentioned the future of Gaza. What is your opinion on the apparent division within the Israeli war cabinet over the future of Gaza? Benny Gantz, a member of that cabinet, set a deadline for Netanyahu to present a plan…
Well, no. All he asked was for Netanyahu to come up with a plan. So it is conceivable that Netanyahu could come up with a plan that he has no intention of carrying out and that would satisfy Gantz. I see no real divisions within the war cabinet at the moment.
But Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said the lack of a plan was hurting Israel and he opposes long-term military rule by Israel over Gaza…
That’s right, but that’s for after the war and the war isn’t even over, so I can’t tell you that this reflects some kind of division that could cause political problems.
He could do so if Gantz and Gallant work together and present Netanyahu with a serious ultimatum. Not a speech to the public, but a serious ultimatum: let’s see the plan or we will call your bluff.
So, it may be useful and substantial, until then, it’s all political grandstanding.
Some people point to the difficulties in getting humanitarian aid into Gaza as a sign of Israel’s lack of empathy for Gaza’s civilian population. What would I say to them?
There was a lack of empathy for the devastation and pain that Israel suffered on October 7.
It was only after great American pressure that Israel allowed this humanitarian aid to come in, and I think you know that Israel cannot afford to continue to be perceived as a country that impedes humanitarian aid.
The fact that Netanyahu does not seem to accept a Palestinian Authority governing Gaza, the current operation in Rafah and the fact that his government does not seem able or willing to stop aggressions against Palestinians in the West Bank are elements used by critics of Israel to say that Israel wants to conquer all the territories “from the river to the sea”…
That’s silly. Public opinion is against this, it cannot be made a reality in practice and what you hear from right-wing politicians is simply nonsense.
This will not happen. I understand critics using this as an anti-Israel issue, but it simply won’t happen.
Many experts and people who consider themselves friends of Israel in the United States and elsewhere early on called for Israel to avoid this type of war. They argued that it would play into the hands of Hamas. Were there really no alternatives to the way Israel has fought this war?
Of course, there were many alternatives. Threaten an invasion, do it quickly and first secure an agreement to release the hostages. There were several other ways to do it.
By the way, start from the south, where Rafah is, and not from the north, because if Hamas is concentrated in Rafah, why then invade the north and cause a humanitarian crisis?
There were many military operational ways to conduct this war differently. Some analysts say this war has further alienated Israel and the Palestinians and that it will take generations to heal the wounds, but at the same time there is a strong push from the United States and other actors for a two-state solution.
How close or far do you think we will be from that after this war? Will any of this make the two-state solution harder or easier?
That’s a great question, but it’s hypothetical. It depends on how the war ends.
At first glance we are more separated, but we also realize that the status quo it cannot be sustained, so we are actually closer, but not with these governments.
BBC World
