By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.
In recent months, discussions have surfaced about Israel’s insistence on maintaining control of the Rafah crossing and the Philadelphi Corridor (14 km) between the Gaza Strip (GS) and Egypt. This has become a central point in negotiations between Israel and Hamas.
Overstating the Significance of Controlling the Philadelphi Corridor
In recent days, Netanyahu has intensified his emphasis on controlling the Philadelphi Corridor, culminating in a sixty-minute press conference where he defended its strategic significance. He described it as a rock of existence for Israel, stating, “This is the oxygen of Hamas.”
Netanyahu argued that achieving the war’s objectives depends on securing this Corridor, insisting that there would be no withdrawal from it. He also stated that Israel would oversee security in GS after the war to prevent smuggling.
Netanyahu did not address why the strategic importance of the Corridor only became apparent to him in the eighth month of the war, despite ministers raising it on the first day, according to Eisenkot, the former Israeli Chief of Staff.
While indirect negotiations were underway with Hamas to reach a deal, the Israeli security cabinet convened on the evening of Thursday, 29/8/2024. Netanyahu issued a cabinet decision to stay in Philadelphi Corridor, effectively closing the door to negotiations by adding a complication that did not exist in previous drafts agreed to by Israel itself. The Israeli negotiators in Doha proposed retaining control over five observation points along the Corridor, each extending 300-400 meters into Rafah. This stands in contrast to the stance of Israeli Defense Minister Gallant and the security establishment, which argue for the necessity of withdrawing from the Philadelphi Corridor as part of the deal, considering that the “achievements” made in GS allow a shift in focus to the north.
Netanyahu sought to leverage his control of the Philadelphi Corridor to advance the extreme nationalist and religious right’s vision for the future of GS. If successful, he would be seen as a hero and savior of Israel. If not, he could use the situation as a bargaining chip for political and security leverage, aiming to secure additional gains and guarantees to be incorporated into the “deal” with Hamas. In either scenario, his goal was to prolong his government (and his political career) for as long as possible.
Unanswered Questions:
Netanyahu’s portrayal of maintaining the Philadelphi Corridor as a crucial strategic issue has placed him in a precarious position. What if he fails to secure any Palestinian, Arab, or international support or cooperation?
What if the resistance’s operations persist, leading to Israeli attrition?
What if the captives held by the resistance are not released and continue to die or be killed?
What if the war’s military, security, and economic quagmire persists, further intensifying international isolation?!
What if opposition and internal pressure within Israel intensify?
What if the resistance in the West Bank (WB) escalates?
What if strikes from the resistance in southern Lebanon and Yemen increase…?!
The Israeli Opposition:
Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid may have captured the essence of Israel’s stance by stating, “The issue of the corridor is not Netanyahu’s concern, but, rather, the Ben Gvir-Smotrich Corridor.” In other words, the corridor is not a strategic concern tied to national security or broader interests. Instead, it is a tactical issue tied to the survival of Netanyahu’s government, which relies on the support of the Religious Zionist bloc led by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.
Therefore, for Ehud Barak, former Prime Minister and Israeli Army Chief of Staff, “Philadelphi is not the rock of our existence, it is the hollow spin of a compulsive gambler [Netanyahu], betting with the lives of the citizens he has abandoned.”
Eisenkot revealed that Netanyahu referenced all the dates in his theorization of controlling the Philadelphi Corridor, but he overlooked the most significant date: 27/5/2024. On that day, the draft deal agreement with Hamas was submitted to members of the Israeli government, where a majority in favor was confirmed. However, Netanyahu refused to bring it to the government for a vote, as his two coalition partners, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who oppose the agreement, were “holding him over a barrel.”
In Eisenkot’s view, the issue of strategy is a false claim. There are intelligence, technological, and operational solutions to prevent smuggling. Since the Egyptians closed the tunnels and constructed the underground barrier, “there have been no penetrating tunnels, not a single pin has gone through”!!
Dan Harel, a former commander of the Israeli Army’s Southern District, criticized Netanyahu, alleging that he is unwilling to negotiate a deal to release the captives, preferring instead that the war continue indefinitely. Harel stated that Netanyahu has sabotaged the deal 12 times, leaving the captives trapped in GS, witnessing a growing resistance in WB, and neglecting the situation in the north.
Palestinian, Arab and International Rejection:
On the other hand, there is a Palestinian refusal to accept the fait accompli that Netanyahu aims to impose in the Philadelphi Corridor. There is also rejection from Egypt and other Arab countries. Globally, including among Western allies, there is significant pushback. Even the Americans seem uncomfortable with the situation; their proposals still involve an Israeli withdrawal from the Corridor, and a senior US source told CNN that Netanyahu “torpedoed everything in one speech.”
If Netanyahu has no one to engage with, how will he proceed with his plan?!
Internal Shift Disrupts Netanyahu’s Strategy
The killing of the six Israeli captives on 30/8/2024, after the army failed to “liberate” them, marked a significant blow to Netanyahu and his “strategy,” as well as a notable shift in Israeli public opinion. This event ignited the anger of the captives’ families, who became increasingly convinced that Netanyahu’s strategy to liberate the prisoners had failed and that, at best, they would only return in coffins.
This led to a surge of sympathy for the captives’ families and provided the opposition with additional grounds to criticize Netanyahu and his coalition. In its coverage of the demonstrations on 1/9/2024, Hadashot Bazman reported that “Israel chose the captives.” These protests, the largest in Israel’s history, saw around 700 thousand demonstrators demanding a prisoner release deal
The execution of the six captives also led Israeli Defense Minister Gallant to call for the security cabinet to “convene immediately and reverse the decision [to remain in Philadelphi] made on Thursday.”
The second indicator appeared in opinion polls, revealing that the “honeymoon” Netanyahu experienced following his return from the US and the assassination of Haniyyah and Shukur had ended. Netanyahu’s popularity has plummeted, causing him to lose his lead. A Maariv poll published on 30/8/2024 showed that Gantz had regained the lead for the first time in weeks. Another opinion poll conducted by Israeli public broadcaster Kan and published on 4/9/2024, indicated that 53% of Israeli “public believes Israel should leave the corridor if it would deliver a deal to bring the hostages home.” In contrast, only 29% “think Israel should keep its presence there even at the cost of not reaching a deal.” Additionally, the poll revealed that 61% of Israelis “do not trust Netanyahu in managing the war in Gaza,” while only 32% do.
Conclusion
It is evident that Netanyahu fabricated the Philadelphi Corridor issue and exaggerated its significance as a “strategic” concern to obstruct negotiations and extend his government and political career. He will likely backtrack and reframe it as a tactical negotiating point, especially under increasing pressure from resistance forces, with more casualties due to his obstinacy and persistence in war, and facing growing internal, Palestinian, Arab and international opposition to his imposed status quo. Consequently, Netanyahu may present his concession on the Philadelphi Corridor as a significant “sacrifice” and a major concession, seeking substantial gains and guarantees in return. As for the resistance and its supporters, they will emphasize that the Philadelphi issue was never part of the negotiations. They will argue that Netanyahu’s retreat carries no cost, amounting to nothing more than “zero,” thereby demonstrating the resistance’s success in imposing its agenda and will.
Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 10/9/2024
Leave A Comment