The Gaza War and The Road Not Taken

Robert Frost’s well-known poem: “The Road Not Taken” may well be very appropriate for how nations, leaders, and groups are dealing with the Israel – Gaza/Hamas conflict. Just as the poem notes that it is the “road not taken” that makes all the difference; the strategies and approaches that have been taken to deal with the Israel – Gaza war/conflict are the usual ones. Now almost a year into this conflict there have been many attempts made to bring the conflict to some resolution. These various efforts are in their own way each an instance where choices have been made that over and over are the road most taken.

The initial reaction was almost a given. Your nation is attacked, and you respond by attacking back at the nation that attacked you. There is a period of time during which other nations choose to support one side or the other, or they remain as unaffiliated / nonresponsive as possible. As the conflict’s conditions and situations change over time and the consequences of actions taken become their own issues, more choices get made by a growing number of nations and other entities. Initial support can ebb and flow toward the major parties in the conflict and among these other groups as well. One of the activities that will be part of this dynamic interplay will be diplomacy. These diplomatic efforts will attempt to limit the conflict, bring about a cease-fire, and ultimately negotiate a settlement between the two hostile parties. If the conflict continues long enough there will be protests by groups that support or oppose one side. There is nothing here that isn’t going down the usual road. As of today, the diplomacy has been generally unable to achieve anything that substantively has brought the conflict to even a cease-fire agreement. The status quo seems to be “we are very close to an agreement” but one or both sides remains unmovable on some issue(s). It’s not that diplomacy has failed, it’s that diplomacy hasn’t succeeded.

Now, I am not trying to give the impression that the Israel – Gaza conflict is simple in any context. It is a very complex situation and brings with it numerous other issues and problems. The history of Israel, Gaza and the region is fraught with conflicts and issues. But that history and complexity are themselves contributing factors to the choices that many nations, leaders, and groups make. Take America’s long-standing policy to support and defend Israel; or the equally long-standing policy that some Middle Eastern nations have or have had regarding eliminating the state of Israel. These preexisting views and policies can make the choices made to be automatic; to take the road always taken. But this reactive decision making can have the effect of not considering or assessing other options; other roads to take.

What I do contend this that there were and even are options that could change the current status quo. Perhaps this can be illustrated with a couple of questions and context.

Is “containing the conflict” and prevent a broader regional war a standard policy?

Yes, this is a goal for most parties involved. It’s in their interests to keep the conflict “contained” and prevent the conflict from expanding to other nations being involved in the fighting. A consequence of this “containment” strategy is that it doesn’t clearly help these same nations’ diplomatic efforts or Israel and Gaza to reach even a “cease-fire”.  

“Containment” practically means that no external military forces will engage in the fighting. And, diplomats and world leaders work to make it clear that any nation that puts troops into the conflict will just bring the conflict to their own nation.

However, military interventions to defend a nation does not seem to be a condition that expand the conflict. Nor does supplying weaponry to either side “expand” the war.  Israel has been attacked by air from a number of other nations, and nations supporting Israel have actively used military defense capabilities to counter those attacks and those nations’ military forces have been attacked themselves.

All of this is pretty much the norm for conflicts in the world today.

This doesn’t mean that there are no additional options (roads to take) in both keeping the conflict “contained” or for resolving some of the “impasses” that have prevented the diplomatic efforts from succeeding to achieve even their first objective: containing the conflict.

A current impasse over the Philadelphia Corridor is an example where the solution may be to take the “road not taken.” Not only would it help “contain” the conflict it would remove an “impasse” that is preventing a “cease-fire” and thus “peace settlement.” As I understand the basic problem/impasse, Israel won’t relinquish control of the Philadelphia corridor to Hamas and Hamas won’t accept the IDF retaining Control. There are several solutions to this problem which just seem self-evident. There is not requirement that it must be one or the other. It could be neither.

Now this rather simple and obvious concept opens up many other possibilities for resolving this conflict. If It had been considered earlier, it would have enabled the diplomatic efforts to be more impactful and effective. Not only would fewer Palestinians have died, but the manner in which nations respond to such conflicts could be more effective at ending them quicker and even preventing them in the future.

 What is needed is to look at all the options available when facing these situations and not falling back on the standard policies without looking for opportunities that would serve the goals and intentions of those policies better than just traveling down the same old road. Looking at the opportunities and what path to take may as Frost has said makes “all the difference.”