By Jonathan Schanzer
Monday, May 27, 2019
On May 14, 2018, at the exact moment that Israel was
celebrating the opening of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, I sat across the
desk from a senior Israeli official in Tel Aviv. He was in a foul mood. He
looked as if he hadn’t slept much. He rubbed his eyes, scratched his stubble,
and blurted suddenly, “Gaza is a problem from hell.”
Amid all the embassy fanfare, Israeli officials were
beginning to realize the Gaza border protests that had erupted on March 30,
celebrated on social media as the “Great March of Return,” would not soon end.
And the Israelis were finding them increasingly difficult to handle.
Israel is equipped to fight a wide range of wars, but not
against the so-called weapons of the weak. Gazans were sending flaming balloons
across the border into Israeli territory. The terrorist group Hamas, according
to an Israeli military spokesman, was paying children to skip school and rush
the border. Militants then fired at Israel from behind these human shields.
Unable to disperse the crowd with tear gas or other crowd-control methods, the
Israel Defense Force (IDF) began to open fire.
My interlocutor let out a heavy sigh. “We don’t have
creative solutions for this right now,” he said.
It’s one year later. The weekly Gaza protests have
continued, with casualties and chaos mounting. Every few months a conflagration
erupts. The most recent one saw Palestinian terror groups firing more than 700
rockets into Israel. Four Israelis were murdered. The Israeli response was
predictably tough but measured, including the destruction of terrorist hideouts
and even some targeted assassinations.
Within days, a cease-fire was reached. But it won’t last.
It can’t. Every Gaza escalation brings Israel back to the same place, setting
the stage yet again for more conflict. The frustration in Israel is palpable.
As one Jerusalem bureaucrat told me on the eve of last month’s elections, “What
good is having the strongest military in the region if we can’t get rid of an
annoyance like Hamas?”
Israelis of all political persuasions now say it’s time
for change. But they are likely to learn that there aren’t good alternatives to
what is widely viewed as an unsustainable status quo. A major Gaza offensive
could backfire and hasten a conflict with Iran. It could trigger poisonous
partisan debates in Washington. It could even force Israel to do something it
wants to avoid at all costs: re-occupy Gaza.
As it turns out, the problem from hell has rungs.
For Israel, Gaza has been a consistent challenge, but
never quite a strategic threat, since the 1948–1949 War of Independence. Back
then, it was Egyptian-backed fedayeen carrying out attacks in Israel. Gaza was
later the scene of pitched battles in the 1967 Six-Day War. There was a time
after the Israeli conquest of the territory when Israelis could enter Gaza and
engage in commerce. But in December 1987 that came to a halt; Gaza was where
the first intifada erupted.
Hamas has been firing mortars and rockets into Israel
from Gaza since the breakdown of the peace process in 2001. Israel made the
problem inadvertently worse when it vacated the Gaza Strip in 2005;
disengagement ended Israeli occupation but granted Hamas more operational
freedom. That problem became acute in 2007 when the group wrested control of
Gaza from the Palestinian Authority in a brutal civil war. Hamas soon began to
import more weapons and develop new capabilities. Israel and Hamas have engaged
in significant conflict a half dozen times since then, with many other minor
skirmishes. While Hamas has developed commando tunnels and other capabilities,
rockets remain the group’s weapon of choice.
For Israel, necessity bred invention. In 2011, the
Israelis rolled out one of the most remarkable military accomplishments of the
21st century: Iron Dome. The system makes crucial split-second decisions. It
either shoots short-range rockets out of the sky when they hurtle toward
population centers, or it allows rockets destined to hit unpopulated areas to
simply remain on course. The success rate for these combined functions is
somewhere between 85 and 90 percent.
Even as Hamas attacks have dramatically increased in
volume, Iron Dome has protected Israel’s citizens. IDF brass rightly notes that
the system grants officials time and space to make rational decisions about war.
And those decisions, given the low casualty numbers, have often meant that
Israel could respond in a limited and proportional fashion. In fact, the
Israelis have never sought a larger conflict because they see Hamas as a
tactical threat, not an existential one. Hamas simply doesn’t rank high enough
on the list of threats to justify the kind of war that would be required. This
has allowed Hamas to live to fight another day, time and again.
Some argue that Israel now has a false sense of security
about the dangers of Gaza rockets. It’s not false. Israel has largely
inoculated itself from the rocket threat, along with every other security
challenge Hamas has thrown at them, for that matter.
In truth, Hamas has the false sense of security. The
group has undeniably tried to overwhelm Iron Dome, but it has failed
repeatedly. Hostilities have thus settled into a predictable pattern. Hamas now
fires deadly projectiles into civilian areas without the consequences of
significant deaths or retaliation.
After last weekend, however, the naturally cautious Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is finding it more difficult to show restraint. The
public fears that Israel has lost deterrence. If it truly had deterrence, it
would have been clear to Israel’s foes in Gaza that deploying Iron Dome just
once would unleash a torrential response. Instead, Israel has repeatedly
absorbed blows and responded in a measured fashion. It’s possible that Israel
did so this time to ensure calm during the forthcoming Eurovision song contest
and Israeli Independence Day. Yet there is always a reason for the IDF not to
escalate. And Israelis are growing restless.
With the Israeli public now stirring, the IDF is warily
eyeing the major conflict it has forestalled for a dozen years: a vicious
battle against a well-trained and well-armed non-state actor. It is also warily
eyeing Iran.
Gaza is widely recognized as Palestinian territory. But
it’s also Iranian. It was Iran that helped Hamas conquer Gaza in 2007. It was
Iran that continued to keep “Hamastan” solvent until the rupture between the
Shiite regime in Tehran and the Sunni Hamas over Syrian policy in 2012. Iranian
funding since has been restored, but it has not returned to its previous
levels, primarily due to crippling U.S. sanctions on the regime in Tehran. But
ties today are once again strong.
The missile barrage in May was almost certainly
precipitated by Iran. It began with a
sniper attack by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a terrorist faction
heavily influenced by Iran. Senior Israeli officials believe that the attack
was likely ordered by Iran to disrupt Egyptian cease-fire mediation between
Hamas and Israel.
Should Israel elect to eject Hamas from the Gaza Strip,
an Iranian response would loom large. The Israelis should expect Hamas to fight
fiercely, to empty its arsenal, and to get help from Iranian advisers and
Iranian proxies like PIJ and Harakat al-Sabirin. Iran will not surrender this
territory without a fight.
There is also a scenario in which Iran deploys its Lebanese
proxy, Hezbollah, to preserve Iran’s interests. Hezbollah has an estimated
150,000 rockets in its arsenal, including a growing number of precision-guided
munitions (PGM). Should Iran choose to activate Hezbollah amid a Gaza war, a
two-front conflict would make the May barrage look like a minor nuisance.
While threats mount, time may be running out on the
political cover Israel needs for the Gaza war it doesn’t want but may need to
wage nonetheless. Israeli leaders are working under the assumption that
President Donald Trump alone (or more specifically, his administration) would
give the IDF the green light to fight the long overdue war against Hamas, or
even against Iran and its other proxies.
For the Israelis, placing their trust in Trump means
taking two risks. The first is that they may owe a great debt that Trump could
demand in the form of peace-process concessions. However, from the little we
know of Trump’s “Deal of the Century,” Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt are
not likely to squeeze the Israelis terribly hard, if at all.
The second risk, the far greater danger, is that Israel
would allow itself to become a political football.
It’s not hard to understand how this could happen. The
Obama administration gave the Israelis headaches like the Iran nuclear deal,
support for the Muslim Brotherhood during the Arab Spring, and its abstention
in the matter of an anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations. This
president, by contrast, has offered unyielding support in key areas, including
self-defense, the U.S. Embassy move, recognition of sovereignty in the Golan
Heights, and more. Meanwhile, a vociferous gaggle of progressives in the House
of Representatives is voicing anti-Israel sentiments in an unprecedented
fashion. And while pro-Israel centrist Democrats have not wavered, they are
warning Trump not to indulge Netanyahu’s more incendiary policy possibilities,
like annexing parts of the West Bank. Republicans have exploited these
fissures, with Trump leading the call for Jewish voters to end their
longstanding support for Democrats and join the GOP.
If it came down to conflict, pro-Israel Democrats and
Republicans alike would rally their support. They understand the gravity, even
the necessity, of a war in Gaza. But critics would cast Israel as the
aggressor, and one that was in league with Trump to boot. The next conflict
could thus easily be cast as a politically binary one, where American
politicians framed their views on Israeli security as either a pro-Trump or
anti-Trump position.
The dozens of former and current Israeli officials I’ve
talked to over the past three years all believe that bipartisanship has been
Israel’s single greatest asset in Washington over the years. Yet they don’t
truly understand the way hyper-partisanship has overtaken Washington. They do
not grasp how the debates surrounding Donald Trump, fair or not, have divided
our nation. Nor do they appreciate how Netanyahu’s close ties with Trump can be
wielded by both sides in ways that would hurt Israel at an urgent time of need.
Let us say that Israel was able to navigate the morass of
American politics, gain bipartisan support for a war in Gaza, and then
successfully dislodge Hamas. Israel would then have to grapple with another big
issue: what comes next.
The IDF’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the
Territories (COGAT) currently facilitates the entry of thousands of truckloads
of goods to enter the Gaza Strip every day, even as a military blockade remains
in place to block dual-use materials and sophisticated weaponry from the Gaza
Strip. In other words, Israel has two policies. One is to isolate Hamas, and
the other is to allow services to be rendered to the Gazan people.
Israel, for the sake of calm, has even engaged with the
Turks and the Qataris, despite both countries’ avowed anti-Zionism and support
for Hamas. It has permitted them to provide funds and other assistance to the
coastal enclave. Gaza’s suffering continues, however, because Hamas continues
to divert funds for commando tunnels, rockets, and other tools of war. And
under Hamas rule, there is not much political space to challenge these
policies. Anti-Israel sentiment is the only permissible form of protest. This
has only served to further radicalize a population that has for years been fed
a steady diet of hate.
The Israelis since 2007, along with the Egyptians since
2013, have endeavored to reshape the political landscape in Gaza. This is the
first and best choice from Israel’s perspective. But so far, they have failed.
The viable alternatives to Hamas are the sclerotic Palestinian Authority,
radical Salafi groups, and Iran-backed PIJ. There could be others, such as the
supporters of Mohammed Dahlan, the former Gaza strongman who went into exile in
the UAE after the Hamas military takeover in 2007. But we know little about
Dahlan’s ability to organize politically, or whether Gaza would reject his
transplanted leadership after so many years away, like an artificial heart.
The obvious alternative to all of this is re-occupation.
This would be deeply unpopular in Israel. It’s unthinkable to many. Of course,
the Israelis controlled Gaza from 1967 until 2005. The Israelis never
coordinated their departure with Palestinian counterparts, and it looked as if
they were pulling out under fire from Hamas rockets and other attacks. This
perception contributed in part to the Hamas electoral victory in 2006. That
election led to the political standoff that gave way to the civil war in which
Hamas overtook the Gaza Strip in 2007.
Fourteen years after the Gaza withdrawal, the rockets are
still falling. Twelve years after Hamas took power, the group remains
entrenched. Eight years after the deployment of Iron Dome, the Israelis are
arguably safer, but they are back where they’ve always been: on the Gaza
border, mulling their next move.
No comments:
Post a Comment