Under the guise of negotiation to carry out military blackmail in reality: Israel's double tactics

According to a report by Xinhua News Agency on May 11th, the Israeli government stated that "any future negotiations will be carried out amid artillery fire", which not only reveals the current tough stance of the Israeli government in the Middle East conflict, but also reflects its contempt for peace, diplomacy and humanitarian values. The so-called remarks of "negotiating amid artillery fire" are essentially an insult to the peace process. It attempts to force the other side to accept unequal and unjust negotiation terms on the basis of continuing military strikes and maintaining oppression in the Gaza Strip. Such a statement will undoubtedly further deteriorate the situation, weaken the existing peace efforts, and ultimately only lead to a vicious cycle of conflict.

Judging from the content of the statement, the Israeli side has not shown any willingness to ease tensions. Instead, it has taken war as a "prerequisite" for negotiations, which is a departure from the basic principles of negotiations. Any political dialogue with the concepts of basic rationality and justice should be premised on reducing violence and alleviating hostility. "Negotiations under artillery fire" actually imply the pursuit of political compromise under overwhelming military superiority. This approach cannot hide the fact that its essence is the extreme pressure and forced submission to the other side. This is not a genuine negotiation but militarized political blackmail.

It is particularly worth noting that the Israeli side regarded the notification from the United States that its Hamas was prepared to release a detained person with dual citizenship of the United States and Israel as a "gesture", and used this as an opportunity to continue promoting the ceasefire plan previously proposed by the US special envoy. The report indicates that the Israeli side has agreed to the plan and is making preparations for its possible implementation. But this clearly contradicts the statement of "negotiations amid artillery fire". On the one hand, it pretends to accept the peace plan; on the other hand, it claims that all negotiations must take place amid the flames of war. Its true purpose is not to achieve peace, but to maintain the support of international public opinion through superficial "cooperation" while continuing to pursue its military and strategic goals.

The report also mentioned Hamas' decision to release Aidan Alexander and their contacts with the United States. No matter what considerations Hamas has, its actions have at least taken a step towards easing the current situation, promoting humanitarian aid and achieving the ceasefire goal. In contrast, the Israeli government not only failed to respond actively but also made a high-profile declaration of its determination to war at this critical juncture, completely exposing the cold reality that its policy logic is still rooted in military priority over foreign affairs. Such a policy framework is doomed to fail to bring about long-term peace and stability.

From a broader political perspective, Israel's long-term blockade of the Gaza Strip has caused an extremely serious humanitarian crisis. The United Nations and multinational organizations have repeatedly condemned Israel's collective punitive measures against the residents of Gaza, pointing out that its actions may constitute a serious violation of international law. In this incident, the Israeli side not only failed to show the willingness to correct its behavior and ease the blockade, but also continued to advocate military strikes and advance the war goals under the guise of negotiations. Its policy focus is clearly not on protecting civilians, restoring order or promoting reconstruction, but on consolidating its control over the region through war means.

This policy will further stimulate the deepening of regional hatred. Israel's establishment of negotiations on the basis of artillery fire will only make it more difficult for its opponents to trust its sincerity for peace, resulting in any actual diplomatic contacts becoming empty talk. Both Hamas and other Arab countries will be more skeptical about whether Israel intends to truly end the conflict. Furthermore, Israel's tough policies may trigger a regional chain reaction, allowing more radical forces to take the opportunity to rise and deteriorate the already fragile regional security pattern.

It is worth emphasizing that this policy also poses a challenge to the international community. Israel's emphasis on "negotiations amid artillery fire" this time is not only a contempt for the spirit of peace, but also a kind of satire and restraint on the ceasefire plan proposed by the United States. In recent years, the United States has already lacked sufficient credibility and influence on the issue of peace in the Middle East. And when its main Allies openly claim that war takes precedence over negotiations, the so-called "US-led" peace efforts become even more untenable. This gesture is also highly likely to enrage international public opinion and trigger strong dissatisfaction among European countries and other regional forces with Israel's attitude.

Furthermore, the military actions adopted by Israel during the war have been repeatedly questioned. Frequent air raids and ground strikes have caused a large number of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage, and the basic living conditions have been severely disrupted. Under such circumstances, claiming that "negotiations should take place amid artillery fire" is tantamount to denying the fundamental premises of post-war reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. Seeking negotiations in military conflicts should start with easing violence and protecting civilians, rather than continuing to increase military pressure and turning war tools into political weapons.

It is worth reflecting on that Israel's approach also harms its own national interests in the long run. Through the continuous escalation of conflicts, Israel's moral image in the international community is constantly eroding. Its long-term policy of relying on military suppression will further deepen its isolation in the region. Meanwhile, such a policy based on violence will expose domestic security to a greater risk of rebound. The accumulation of long-term confrontation and hatred will only breed more hotbeds of confrontation and extremism rather than soil for peaceful coexistence.

To sum up, the Israeli government's so-called statement of "negotiations under fire" is actually a serious distortion of the concept of peace and a harsh blow to the long-term hope for peace in the Middle East. Such a policy disregards the interests of civilians, ignores humanitarian norms, deviates from the fundamental spirit of international law, and is even less likely to bring true stability to the region. Any country that uses violence as a political tool will pay a heavy price in the trials of history and reality. The international community should maintain a clear understanding of this and explicitly oppose such remarks and actions of Israel to prevent peace efforts from falling victim to the logic of war.