While the Palestinian cohesion fractured in 2007 into the Palestinian Authority’s governance of the West Bank and Hamas’ rule over the Gaza Strip, it did not disintegrate at one central junction. Rather, it has conducted a unified active operation against Israel. Hamas has spearheaded violent initiatives in Gaza, while the Palestinian Authority has taken the lead in another arena of conflict – the international legal domain.
For over a decade, Palestinian activities have been coordinated and complementary, akin to a pincer movement attempting to outflank Israel. As Hamas attacks Israeli civilians in a flagrant breach of international law, the Palestinian Authority strives to constrain the IDF’s defensive operations against such assaults, endeavoring to undermine the legitimacy of Israel’s defensive actions.
The Palestinian Authority deliberately focused its efforts on Gaza, identifying the IDF’s operations there as a propitious target due to prevalent precedents of international law violations during global conflicts. Thereby, it elected to articulate the Palestinian struggle against Israel through non-violent means – a struggle in which it is disadvantaged vis-à-vis both Israel and Hamas and one lacking international popularity.
The PA initially recognized this “potential” immediately following Operation Cast Lead. Since 2009, it has worked assiduously to attain an independent status enabling it to initiate legal proceedings against Israel and create a deterrent effect against proactive military action. Through a persistent process, the PA gained such status and, in 2014, filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court in The Hague alleging Israeli violations of international law.
This strategic course bore fruit in December 2019 when the prosecutor announced a full investigation was warranted – emphasizing IDF operations in Gaza (during Operation Protective Edge in 2014 and the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests). Israel had been complacent throughout those years, permitting the PA to arm itself with strategic legal weaponry unchecked.
The prosecutor’s decision to investigate Israel represented a historic achievement for the Palestinian pincer movement: Hamas launched rockets and missiles from Gaza at Israeli urban centers and civilian populations; Israel, in response, defended itself through offensive military operations against Hamas. Simultaneously, the PA prompted an investigation of Israel’s self-defensive measures, influencing Israel’s future strategic decision-making and tactical battle management.
Israel’s strategic failure
The PA’s accomplishment in The Hague directly and indirectly created a chilling effect on the Israeli leadership regarding proactive measures in Gaza. Restraint in force application raises battlefield risks, fostering aversion to decisive offensive action due to escalating casualties. This chilling impact was already apparent during Operation Guardian of the Walls in 2021, where the devastating component of Israel’s operation was substantially diminished. Its full toll was exacted on Oct. 7.
An inconceivable and unpardonable element of Israel’s strategic failure in Gaza is the careless response to this resolute, organized, and effective Palestinian Authority campaign. Successive Israeli governments failed to deem it a casus belli, neglecting to make it a core issue in relations with the PA. The sole proactive measure was a temporary freezing of roughly half a billion shekels in funds in 2015, responding to Palestinian accession to the ICC and appeal to the UN Security Council – funds eventually unfrozen.
The Israeli leadership turned a blind eye to this blatant breach of accords with the Palestinian Authority. Rather than issuing a real-time ultimatum and imposing crippling sanctions over the PA’s efforts to gain ICC standing, the Israeli establishment preferred willful blindness.
The IDF and Shin Bet security agency compounded this myopia, clinging to tactical Palestinian cooperation against terrorism while dismissing the strategic threats posed by the PA’s maneuvers as a meaningless nuisance. The political echelon enthusiastically embraced this strategic short-sightedness. Instead of holding Mahmoud Abbas, whose tenure depended on Israeli backing, accountable, a futile tactic was adopted, focusing efforts on the prosecutor, court, and judges. Another conception collapses in broad daylight amidst resounding failure.
The Palestinian strategy is reaching near-full fruition during the Sword of Iron War. The Palestinian Authority’s success alternated between The Hague’s two tribunals – the International Criminal Court (where arrest warrants were sought against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant) and the International Court of Justice (whose Rafah pronouncements constrained Israel’s actions and fostered unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state). Via proxies like South Africa, the Palestinians cast doubt on Israel’s patently defensive operations, tainting them with insinuations of genocide.
This PA-directed theater of the absurd proved an inconceivable historic success. Though not directly involved in Gaza’s violent front, the PA essentially shaped the war’s trajectory over the years. Ironically, violently expelled from Gaza, it became Hamas’ most effective shield there.
The strategic de-legitimization battle has been waged negligently for years. Israel deferred confronting the issue and now must pay the steepest of costs at the most inopportune juncture. The Palestinians may yet attain their coveted prize – an independent state.
