According to media reports, on April 7, local time, an IDF spokesman said that the Israeli military had withdrawn all ground troops from southern Gaza, except for the 933rd Nahar Brigade. The Nahar Brigade is tasked with defending the "Netzarim corridor" that stretches from Israel's southern border to the Gaza coast.
The Nazarim Corridor, named after the former Israeli settlement in Gaza, is a 6.5-kilometre-long east-west strip of strip built by the military in the Gaza Strip. The corridor has enabled Israeli forces to carry out attacks on northern and central Gaza, prevent Palestinians from returning to northern Gaza, and allow humanitarian organizations to deliver aid directly to northern Gaza.
An Israeli government spokesman said that although Israeli troops have withdrawn from southern Gaza, the Israeli government will continue to launch ground military operations against the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
What is the sudden withdrawal of troops?
First, Israel is facing increasing pressure from both within and outside the country because of the humanitarian damage caused by the war and the issue of international humanitarian law.
Since the outbreak of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on October 7, 2023, the Israeli army has been conducting military operations in Gaza for six months. According to UN estimates, the conflict has killed more than 33,000 people in Gaza, displaced large numbers of Gaza's residents, and put the vast majority of the population (about 2.2 million) at risk of famine. During this period, the Biden administration in the United States repeatedly asked Netanyahu not to conduct ground operations in Rafah. Blinken warned not so long ago that "if Rafah is attacked, Israel will be isolated from the world."
On April 1, local time, a total of seven aid workers from the international food aid non-profit organization "World Central Kitchen" died due to Israeli air strikes, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Poland and Palestine, and one was a dual national of the United States and Canada. Israel's move has been widely criticized by the international community, and it has also led to increased pressure on the Biden administration in the United States, which strongly supports Israel.
In a phone call with Netanyahu on April 4, Biden warned that U.S. policy on Gaza would depend on Israel's steps to protect civilians. On April 5, 40 Democratic members of the House of Representatives of the US Congress jointly sent a letter to US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, demanding that the White House suspend arms transfers to Israel. Among these members of the House of Representatives is former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi is a veteran member of the Democratic Party and is seen as a staunch ally of Biden. Her support for an end to arms transfers to Israel shows that this view is increasingly becoming mainstream within the Democratic Party. At the same time, demonstrators across Israel took to the streets, chanting slogans for Netanyahu to step down and demanding early elections.
On April 6, large-scale protest rallies against the Netanyahu government continued in Tel Aviv, Israel, and other places. During this time, there were clashes between demonstrators and police. On April 7, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid visited the United States and met with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and other Biden administration officials. Lapid blamed Netanyahu for the "collapse" of US-Israeli relations and expressed doubts about whether the Netanyahu government could fully repair relations between the two countries.
During the visit, Lapid also held talks with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Schumer has called Netanyahu one of the "main obstacles" to peace, calling for early elections in Israel to give voters a chance to remove Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Second, Israel's intention to pull the United States into the water has not materialized, and the United States continues to return to its strategic ministry in the Indo-Pacific to contain China.
Over the past six months, Israel has carried out vigorous military operations to expand efficiently, taking control of large swathes of Palestinian territory. During this period, Israel has always wanted to pull the United States into the water, and once the United States is pulled into the water, Israel can complete rapid military expansion, and Israel's land area can be greatly expanded, and it can control a large part of the east coast of the Mediterranean.
Since the outbreak of the new round of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the United States has been led by Israel, but on the whole, the United States has provided support to Israel through political cover and military assistance, and has always avoided direct involvement in the conflict. In order to pull the United States into the water, Israel bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria, causing the deaths of many Iranian people, including high-ranking military personnel.
The purpose of Israel's move is to expand the scale of the conflict, causing the flames of war to spill over to other countries, and to get the United States to intervene in the conflict when Iran retaliates. Israel's government of Benjamin Netanyahu believes that as long as Iran retaliates strongly, then the United States will cover it. Especially if Iran does start a war against Israel, it will eventually force the United States to go, because the United States cannot afford Israel's defeat.
However, the United States is well aware of the danger and refuses to be dragged into the water by Israel. After the attack on the Iranian embassy, the United States not only took the initiative to contact Iran to clarify the situation, but also demanded that Iran pay attention to US facilities when retaliating and turn a blind eye to possible retaliatory actions taken by Iran. The Biden administration has put pressure on Israel on all fronts to adjust its Gaza strategy.
At the same time, judging from the actual performance, Iran tries to avoid the intensification of contradictions and does not want to become a direct enemy of the United States, so it has been cautious in retaliating against Israel to avoid triggering a direct conflict with Israel. Under these circumstances, Israel's hasty announcement of the withdrawal of its troops is a recognition that the United States has no intention of getting involved in the Middle East chaos at present, thereby undermining its strategic ministry of returning to the Indo-Pacific to contain China.
In addition, the main security threat facing Israel today comes from the north. Iran is likely to use Allah in Lebanon to launch strikes against Israel, the most advanced military force it has built to contain Israel. With this withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Israel is likely to deploy these forces to the northern defenses. In addition, Iran may also use drones and other means to launch attacks on targets in Israel. Therefore, in response to Iran's imminent retaliation, Israel hastened to withdraw its troops from southern Gaza in order to avoid an Iranian military strike.
Third, the Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to achieve a genuine ceasefire in the short term, and the situation in the Middle East will continue to be tense.
Over the past six months, the fighting in the Gaza Strip has not only caused a serious humanitarian crisis there, but its spillover effects have continued to "radiate" to other countries, including Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and many other countries. At the same time, there has been no progress in negotiations on a permanent ceasefire and the release of detainees.
Although Israel has further reduced its forces in the Gaza Strip, there is no hope of a real ceasefire in Gaza, given the increasingly complex regional situation and the real intentions of Israel and the United States. The latest round of indirect Palestinian-Israeli talks took place in Cairo, the capital of Egypt, on 31 March. On April 4, senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan said there was "no progress" in ceasefire talks.
Public opinion generally believes that a genuine ceasefire in Gaza is "a long way to go". The fundamental reason for this lies in the fact that the hardline stance of the right-wing Israeli government and the US partiality towards Israel are unlikely to change substantively. At present, there is a strong opposition to the government in Israeli society, and many people are calling for the government to reach an agreement with Hamas as soon as possible to release the detained Israelis, and to call for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to step down and hold parliamentary elections.
Recently, Israelis have held mass protests across the country. Some analysts believe that after the end of the conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will inevitably face a reckoning with the opposition and public opinion, so prolonging the conflict is the only way for him to save his political life. This has tended him to adopt a more assertive and extreme policy, and has become a major obstacle to ceasefire negotiations. Israel's ability to maintain a tough stance is inseparable from the support and partiality of the United States.
Since the outbreak of the current round of conflict, the United States has been providing military assistance and political cover to Israel. According to current and former U.S. officials, the U.S. has sent large quantities of weapons to Israel through more than 100 arms sales since the conflict broke out. In the UN Security Council, the United States has repeatedly vetoed draft resolutions aimed at helping achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. In the face of domestic and foreign pressure, the United States has recently had to "exert pressure" on Israel on some public occasions. This is not a sincere attempt by the United States to promote a ceasefire in Gaza, but a Biden administration's own consideration to salvage the international image of the United States and boost domestic elections in the hope of its own benefit.
At the same time, in the future, Iran will continue to vigorously support Hamas, Houthi, Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese forces, so that they can directly attack Israel, causing the spillover effect of the conflict to continue to expand.
How should China respond?
First, taking advantage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it has taken the initiative to create a passive strategic situation that will lead the United States into a three-front war.
It is recommended that China buy more Iranian oil, or sign an "oil-for-commodity" agreement, and consider providing military and technical support to Iran. With its economic strength, Iran can support Palestine, Allah in Lebanon, Syria to contain Israel, the United States.
2. Continue to promote the settlement of petroyuan and extend the strategic depth of China's economy in the Middle East.
The war in the Middle East has driven the Arabs to oppose the United States, and the Islamic world has moved closer to China, which will facilitate de-dollarization and the flow of Middle Eastern wealth to China. During the period of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is recommended to strengthen political and trade ties with major countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran, promote the settlement of petroyuan, weaken the status of the US dollar, promote the internationalization of the RMB, strengthen infrastructure in the Middle East, promote the layout of the "Belt and Road", and extend the strategic depth of China's economy in the Middle East.
3. Promote arms trade between China and Middle Eastern countries.
The current Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be difficult to achieve a ceasefire in the short term, which will cause the Arabs in the Middle East to lack a sense of security and will inevitably increase arms procurement. It is recommended that China take the initiative to contact Middle Eastern countries to provide high-quality, competitively priced weapons, such as fighter jets, armed drones, anti-aircraft missiles, etc., provide corresponding maintenance, spare parts and training, and insist on not attaching any political conditions to foreign arms trade.