Middle East expert Gerlach: “A ceasefire is unrealistic”

US Secretary of State Blinken is traveling to the Middle East for the fourth time since the start of the war. But the prospects for a ceasefire are poor, says Middle East expert Gerlach in an interview. Can violence still be reduced?

daily News: US Secretary of State Blinken travels to the Middle East region. Negotiations have been taking place in the background in Qatar for days; the main issue here is Egypt’s proposal regarding a possible ceasefire. What can you tell us about the status of the negotiations?

Daniel Gerlach: Mr. Blinken’s visit is one thing and the negotiations are another. Of course, the Americans play an important role as advocates for the Israeli side in all of these negotiations. But for the Americans, it’s about more than freeing the hostages, even if that is an important goal.

The Americans do not want to give up the reins and, above all, they want to have a say in the schedule of the military operation in Gaza. Because the whole thing is now affecting the American primary election campaign. And we see that there are more and more resentments and increasingly open conflicts between the Israeli government and the Biden administration.

“The Israeli side doesn’t want any Armistice”

daily News: In your opinion, how likely are the chances of a possible compromise at the moment, i.e. the chances of a successful ceasefire? Or maybe a ceasefire first?

Gerlach: I think one can hardly hope for a ceasefire or ceasefire in the current situation. As dramatic as the humanitarian situation is in Gaza, it is urgently necessary for such a ceasefire to come about.

But the Israeli side doesn’t want that. And she has announced and prepared everyone that this operation will continue for months.

This means that behind the scenes we have to say goodbye to the goal of a ceasefire, even if one can and should demand it politically again and again. What is crucial is that violence is reduced.

It should also be clear to the Arab side that the Israeli side cannot be prevented from continuing a military operation in the Gaza Strip. But: How can we ensure that this military operation loses intensity and, above all, no longer targets the civilian population?

So far, the civilian population has not only been affected by the Israeli attacks in the sense of collateral damage, but has also been targeted in some cases. Because the population of the Gaza Strip is held jointly responsible for the massacre on October 7th, they want to punish them and provide deterrence in the future.

However, the killing of a high-ranking Hamas commander in Beirut, which became known last Tuesday, has shuffled the cards again. Because it could be that this creates a new situation that could also drag the Americans into a conflict.

Hezbollah should strike back with dramatic consequences

daily News: Let’s look at the terrorist organization Hamas. Could the above-mentioned strike against the high-ranking Hamas leader in Beirut bring Israel a decisive step forward in achieving its own war goals, i.e. the destruction of Hamas?

Gerlach: Propagandistically, after all, the Israeli side has shown: “We are carrying out our threat, we are meeting Hamas representatives all over the world.” Qatar and Turkey had previously made it very clear to the Israelis that they would face very serious consequences if they attacked them on their respective territories.

In Lebanon, the Israeli government thinks it has a free hand, even if it has not claimed responsibility for this blow. Of course, everything suggests that Israel is responsible for this.

Government spokesman Mark Regev, for example, stated in an interview that this was neither a strike against Hezbollah nor a strike against Lebanese territory, but was aimed solely at Hamas.

The whole thing can have dramatic consequences, because if Hezbollah strikes back, if it escalates further on Israel’s northern border, it could lead to a major war, a major military strike in Lebanon, but also to heavy rocket fire.

daily News: In your opinion, how great is the risk of a so-called wildfire?

Gerlach: Even if I don’t like this concept of conflagration because it is very imprecise, I think the risk of regional escalation is still great. This may affect the West Bank.

But this particularly applies to the current situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah is not Hamas. And the Israeli side also knows that Hezbollah has other options than waging war against Israel. Because it is also an actor in Syria, an actor in Lebanese politics, and ultimately a political actor in the entire region.

Now Hezbollah, on the other hand, knows that the Israelis have a defense doctrine that doesn’t give them much freedom of movement.

After October 7th at the latest, the Israelis came to the conclusion that an enemy that has the potential, the armaments and the armed forces to attack them will do so sooner or later.

In this respect, we are currently in a real psychological war. Because it may be that the Israelis are waging a preventive war to forestall an attack by Hezbollah.

However, it is also possible that Hezbollah will try to forestall this pre-emptive attack. I think the Americans also want to de-escalate now.

Foreign Minister Blinken is also traveling to the region to show that the USA has no interest in it. Americans may fear that the Israelis will drag them into such a regional conflict.

And that would then have consequences for Lebanon, for Iran, for the Persian Gulf, for the Red Sea and other areas where American troops are stationed or have naval forces.

Biden’s interest in ending the conflict

daily News: The USA is facing the next elections this year. What influence does this escalation in the region have on the outcome of the elections or on the campaign that is now gaining momentum?

Gerlach: On the one hand, Joe Biden is seen by his own supporters as someone who is not working hard enough for peace and who is also not containing the Israeli side enough.

On the other side, however, is the more conservative camp, which needs to be convinced, especially in the so-called swing states, if Biden is to win here. And he may be seen as a weak supporter of Israel.

That’s why Biden has a great interest in ending this war quickly. And he does this in two ways: on the one hand, through negotiations, and on the other hand, in the background, by giving the Israelis a kind of carte blanche when it comes to US arms deliveries.

So far, he has not used this issue as a means of exerting pressure on the Netanyahu government. And I think that’s a bigger problem.

Besides the United States, there are only a few countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany, that are so clearly perceived in large parts of the world as a party to the conflict on Israel’s side. And the United States has to make a decision because so far it has not been able to decisively influence the conflict from this position.

Restraint is no substitute for politics

daily News: You mentioned that Germany positioned itself very clearly alongside the USA after the terrorist attacks on October 7th. To what extent is Germany actually negotiating on the sidelines when it comes to the future after this war?

Gerlach: I find it striking how silent the German political elite and the federal government are on this issue. The issue of Gaza and the dramatic humanitarian consequences have faded into the background.

The so-called constructive silence, which means little or no public criticism, abstaining from the United Nations and so on in order to give the Israeli side the time it wants to fight Hamas – none of this replaces politics.

The interview was conducted by Katja Keppner, tagesschau.de