GLORIA's Barry Rubin on Gaza

What To Do About Gaza: The Realistic Scenario Barry Rubin March 17, 2008

Not only is there no good solution to the Gaza problem, there's no "solution" at all. But in the Middle East, solutions are rare; what's needed is the best, imperfect, option among five alternatives:

Current policy. Israel absorbs damage and casualties in Sderot and some other places. Few are affected; almost all the country functions normally. International pressure and casualties are limited. Israel hits rocket launchers, terrorist bases, and leading terrorists periodically. Eventually, there will be an anti-rocket defense.

But aside from government's duty to its citizens, things will change. Hamas will produce larger and longer-range missiles against Ashkelon and eventually Ashdod.

Another problem with this strategy is that Western criticism defines even minimal self-defense methods as disproportionate. If you get slammed for taking punches you might as well fight back. Moreover, the West basically protects Hamas' rule in Gaza, despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation, neither of which might last. As Hamas grows more aggressive, Western policies might become more appeasing. Meanwhile, being "soft" on Hamas doesn't make peace talks work but does make Hamas look more effective than the less violent PA and Fatah.

Finally, public opinion presses government to change policy.

There are three proposals playing off a thirst for neat solutions. A ceasefire is an ideal dovish solution, overthrowing Hamas appeals to hawks, and giving the mess to an international force makes both philosophies happy. Unfortunately none of these ideas work.

A ceasefire is riddled with problems, paradoxically bringing even more violence. Hamas won't observe it, letting both its own members and others attack Israel while inciting murder through every institution. The ceasefire won't last long; Hamas would use it to strengthen its rule and army while demanding a reward for its "moderation": an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation; even Western aid.

Re-occupy Gaza; Destroy Hamas. Sounds good. But how? Israel isn't being hit hard enough to make such a huge undertaking worthwhile. Troops would face constant attack from all directions. Once again, Israel would be involved in the daily rule of more than one million hostile people. Too many soldiers would be tied up to permit proper security in the West Bank and Lebanon border. It would be high-cost in casualties, money, and international friction.

And in the end Hamas will not be "destroyed." To defeat Hamas is not to eliminate it but to keep it as weak as possible (through military strikes, isolation, etc.) and limit its ability to hit Israel.

There's also the plan's second fallacy of turning Gaza over to a "moderate" Fatah and PA. There is no chance of their accepting this gift. In fact, Fatah would rather make a deal with Hamas than fight it. And why believe they'd do a better job than last time?

The International Solution. But there's a gimmick: the idea of turning Gaza over to an international force. This is a fantasy. Countries are not going to send forces into a war there to be attacked every day, nor will they brave criticism from Arab and Muslim states as well as terrorist attacks for no benefit.

Besides, what will the force do? Certainly not arrest thousands of Gazans, kill those trying to attack Israel, hold mass trials of terrorists and sentence them to long prison terms. Definitely not disarm Hamas or stop arms smuggling from Egypt.

And when rockets keep falling that force would block Israeli military action there. The option would also be a political disaster, with the sponsoring countries rushing to establish a Palestinian state and negotiate with Hamas. Finally, as noted above, the PA and Fatah won't take Gaza from an international force.

Push Hamas Back: What is needed is the most realistic option based on reality, not wishful thinking. Israel's interest is to minimize attacks on its soil and citizens while limiting the cost of the response needed to achieve that goal. This can be best done by combining a more active version of current policy and the creation of a security zone in the "northern" Gaza Strip to push Hamas and its allies out of range.

Such a zone could be made relatively secure because it would be on a narrow front, with flanks protected by the sea on the north and Israel proper on the south and east, with Israel controlling the airspace. This is an interim policy until anti-missile, anti-rocket defenses can be implemented, perhaps three years.

Of course, there is risk. Israeli forces will be attacked, yet they would be in a strong, fortified position and know they are protecting the civilians behind them. Some rockets will fall on Israel but the numbers would be far reduced and the area affected limited. Israel would continue to operate within Hamas-held Gaza as needed.

Will the world--which claims Israel is occupying Gaza already--do much if Israel temporarily takes back ten percent?

This issue will not be solved by negotiations, concessions, appeasement, force, or anything else. Defense Minister Ehud Barak is right: "It's not the end, the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning."

The same logic applies to Gaza as for the West Bank and Lebanon border. The main goal is for the army to minimize danger and damage so people can go about their normal lives and build up the country, protected by their soldiers.
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) CenterInterdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167 Herzliya, 46150 IsraelEmail: info@gloriacenter.org Phone: +972-9-960-2736 Fax: +972-9-956-8605

When Palestinian violence stops, there will be peace

Follow The Sequence Of Mideast Violence
By OFER BAVLY March 9, 2008

There is no symmetry between Israel and Palestinian extremists.
There are no shades of gray; there is no cultural relativism, no equidistant, conditional ifs and buts. There is no Israeli action followed by a Palestinian reaction. There is no egalitarian share of the blame and responsibility, and the sooner this fact is understood by the international community, the better.
Recent media reports about the plight of Gaza residents highlighted the fact that hunger, poverty, shortage of electricity and fuel in Gaza were the result of Israel's blockade on that Palestinian-controlled zone. As if Israel decided, out of the blue, to impose collective punishment on all Palestinians out of sheer evil. It was then easy for the world media to present rocket launching from Gaza as a natural, understandable, reaction of a frustrated, hungry population. Similarly, terror attacks against Israeli civilians are regularly presented by Palestinian spokesmen (picked up by "objective" journalists) as retaliation to the Israeli blockade on Gaza.
There is a difference between an arsonist lighting a building, and the fireman putting out the fire. There is no similarity between a robber who attacks his victim, and the policeman who attacks the robber in order to arrest him. Sure, both may use violence. But are they equally reponsible for it?
Too often, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may seem like a vicious circle of violence, a back and forth game of tennis, an eye-for-an-eye that ultimately leaves both sides blind and the international community apathetic at best - and anti-Israeli at worst - mistaking victim for aggressor.
It may be necessary to remind ourselves that in the Middle East, there is a sequence of events, not a cycle of violence. It is a continuum which can be stopped at a moment's notice, by the Palestinians, should they choose to do so or should they feel the necessary international pressure to do so.
In August 2006, Israel pulled out of Gaza. We dismantled our settlements, down to the last one. We redeployed our troops outside Gaza. We left Gaza to the Gazans - no occupation, no Israeli presence. Without our presence there, the Hamas terror organization staged a coup d'etat in June 2007, taking over Gaza from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Since then, they have launched over 5,000 missiles at Israel's southern region.
Remember: there was no occupation of Gaza. There was no blockade of Gaza. That was not retaliation. There was no symmetry, only terrorism. And yet, Israel did not react to that provocation. We did not invade Gaza, or reconquer any part of it. But after thousands of rockets landed on our towns, Israel decided that supplying the Palestinians with fuel, electricity and other basic needs isn't the best policy of self-defense.
A blockade was imposed. When Hamas blew open the border between Gaza and Egypt, they opened the door to a massive influx of arms, ammunitions and terrorists coming into Gaza. They also used the breach to allow terrorists to cross into Sinai and from there into Israel, where they will try to kill more of our citizens.
This is not symmetry. This is terrorism, launched against people whose only crime is being Israeli and wanting to live in peace and security.
Israel will defend itself against this latest wave of terror. Do not call it a cycle of violence. The violence will end when the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking us. If they renounce violence, there will be peace. If we renounce self-defense, Israel will cease to exist. No symmetry.

Ofer Bavly is Israel's consul general in Miami

Thursday: More than 25 Qassam rockets fired at western Negev

Fragile truce takes another beating as al-Quds Brigades fire rockets at western Negev; student suffers from shock. Simultaneously, seven mortar shells fired towards border fence
Seven mortar shells were also fired landing near the border fence. A seminary student suffered shock.

The Islamic Jihad's military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, claimed responsibility for the Qassam fire. [ynetnews.com]

When univited guests drop in

Rockets fired at Sderot

Is fragile lull over? Qassam rocket barrage fired at southern town Wednesday night; attack causes some damage, no injuries reported; earlier, Islamic Jihad vows to avenge killing of four terrorists
Shmulik Hadad
03.13.08, 01:08 ynetnews.com

Will truce last? At least eight Qassam rockets were fired at Sderot from the northern Gaza Strip Wednesday night following a brief lull in attacks on southern Israel communities.

Two rockets landed in town, near a school and next to a warehouse, and caused some damage. Security forces were attempting to pinpoint the landing site of another rocket that apparently fell in a residential area. One rocket landed in the Strip, while the others landed in open areas outside Sderot.

--------------------

Terms of endearment

[From the AP] Haniyeh used the word “tahdia,” or calm, to describe the informal cease-fire he sought. He did not use the Arabic word “hudna,” which is interpreted as a more formal truce. Both terms denote a temporary cease-fire rather than a permanent peace, but even the subtle differences between the words has led to fierce debate among Arabs in past cease-fire efforts.

A Bad Day for Terrorists

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
1. Head of the Islamic Jihad Terror Organization in Bethlehem Killed Today with 3 other leaders
2. Senior Islamic Jihad Operative Killed


'Gaza escalation to worsen before calm'
Barak denies cease-fire with Hamas, casts doubts on prospects of negotiation with the PA.

Ceasefire in the making

Reports are that Israel, Hamas and Egypt agree informally to a ceasefire and the end of the Gaza seige. [Debka.com]

Rocket Attack on Ashkelon
(IsraelNN.com) Palestinian Authority terrorists in Gaza ended a four-day lull Tuesday with a rocket attack on Ashkelon. The missile exploded in an area south of the coastal city just hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned residents while touring Ashkelon that it will never be possible to completely stop rocket attacks on the city.

ynetnews.com Report: Israel wants month-long truce with Hamas
Jerusalem to declare official ceasefire with Palestinians should 'trial period' pass without additional rocket attacks from Gaza and Palestinians refrain from digging arms-smuggling tunnels, Al-Quds Al-Arabi reports

Jerusalem Post: Israel is demanding that a formal calm with Hamas be preceded by a 30-day "feeling the pulse" period, the London-based daily Al-Quds al-Arabi reported Tuesday.

Heading toward de facto truce with Hamas?

From Israel Radio: Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday that there is no ceasefire agreement with Hamas and such an accord is not close. Barak said that only when the rocket fire from Gaza ceases, the terrorist attacks stop, and weapons smuggling drops significantly, will Israel consider agreeing to a truce.

Despite the recent drop in Kassam rocket fire towards Israel, Hamas officials have also said there is no formal truce with Israel. At the same time, Hamas officials have said that the group will stop the fire if Israel halts it military operations.

As interpreted by JTA.org: Israeli forces have dramatically scaled back operations in the Gaza Strip in what appears to be a bid to secure a de facto truce with Hamas.