Japan must uphold humanitarianism in the Middle East

A little over a week has passed since Hamas’ cross-border attack on southern Israel. Great shock and sadness have spread throughout Israeli and Palestinian societies. In Japan, a flurry of emotions and opinions have been expressed by those who feel for each side and who are concerned about the tragedy as a whole.

The dispatch of ground units to the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military seems inevitable. Civilian casualties will continue to rise and the destabilization of the region will deepen as the death toll increases.

The assault by Hamas was a carefully planned military action. According to an announcement on Thursday by Abu Obaida, spokesperson for the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing, the attack was planned since early 2022 and involved 3,000 fighters and 1,500 logistics personnel.

The raid, which was carried out after careful consideration of the weather and geographical conditions, saw the firing of 3,500 rockets — the initial claim by the Brigades’ supreme commander Mohammed Deif that the rockets were 5,000 was casually corrected by Abu Obaida — to disrupt the Israeli army, and to target its watchtowers and surveillance systems, therefore allowing large number of militants to cross the border into Israel.

Israel has nearly completed the first few days of fighting with Palestinian militants and launched a barrage of airstrikes against Gaza. Israeli troops are amassing around the territory and on Oct. 10 a new war cabinet was formed including former Defense Minister Benny Gantz, who joined Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an emergency unity government.

The deployment of Israeli ground forces inside the Gaza Strip is expected to be imminent: On Friday, the Israeli military called on residents of northern Gaza to evacuate the area within 24 hours.

What should be noted are the medium- and long-term factors that led to this situation. This is suggested by the fact that, in its statement after the attack, Hamas referred to the continuation of the Israeli occupation, the imprisonment of Palestinians, and the defense of Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque — major problems that have existed for a long time — without giving a specific motivation for the recent assault.

The circumstances facing Hamas and changes that have taken place in the Middle East over the past several years likely motivated Hamas to act.

First, the socioeconomic deprivation of the Gaza Strip must be noted. Unemployment is at over 45%, 65% of the population lives below the poverty line and 80% of Gaza residents are forced to rely on some form of humanitarian support.

In 2012, the U.N. published a special report, “Gaza in 2020: A Livable Place?,” which answered the question in its title with a resounding “no.” In other words, the report emphasized that it is difficult for people to live in the Gaza Strip. Just as an example, water wells are contaminated due to sewage treatment problems and access to safe drinking water is poor.

This year also saw tensions in the West Bank on a scale not witnessed over the past 16 years. New Palestinian armed groups have emerged there, in Jenin and Nablus, and there have been repeated military actions by Israel. Hamas’ move is related to these developments: It wants to make known that its role in the struggle against Israel is preeminent.

In addition, we need to look at broader changes throughout the region. In the statement issued by Hamas in relation to the attack, the entry of the “radical Zionist right” into government was emphasized several times. This refers to the formation of Netanyahu's government together with religious Zionist parties at the end of last year.

In addition, the ongoing normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries since 2020, and especially the imminent possibility of the normalization of ties with Saudi Arabia, must have been seen by many Palestinians, not just Hamas, as a blow: A process by which support for their cause among supposedly sympathetic states is being unravelled behind their back.

To be sure, many Arab states have been decreasing their involvement in the Palestinian issue for decades, but the normalization of diplomatic relations is an official declaration that this process has reached a stage from which there is no turning back.

However, the question remains. What kind of discussions did Hamas have about these circumstances that led to the large-scale attack on Israel? Even if there is no doubt that the military wing led the move, what kind of coordination took place with Hamas leaders outside of Gaza? What is known at this point is limited.

Japanese society has been watching and paying close attention to these developments. While Japan has a long history of civil society-led solidarity movements with the Palestinians, Japanese political and business circles have deepened ties with Israel since the 2010s.

The increase in private investment has been particularly impressive, as demonstrated by the signing of a Japan-Israel investment agreement in 2017. It will be interesting to see whether these deepening economic and political ties will shift Japanese diplomacy toward the Middle East as a whole.

To date, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not appear to have changed its three-pronged policy toward peace in the Middle East, which involves political dialogue with concerned parties, confidence-building among the parties and economic assistance to the Palestinian people.

However, the current development could potentially be a turning point in this policy. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno’s statement on Thursday, the first from the Japanese government to refer to Hamas’ attack as terrorism, may suggest that.

Meanwhile, Israeli attacks on Gaza have resulted in the deaths of numerous Palestinian civilians. The deployment of ground troops inside the territory will increase the number of casualties tremendously. The Japanese government and civil society have a responsibility to speak out against any use of violence in either Israel or the Palestinian territories in defense of humanitarianism and the value of human life.