It is the problem of being stuck between a rock and a hard place: An escalation in worrying violence in Southern Israel, following a series of deadly terrorist attacks near the Egyptian border from Egyptian Sinai as well as a barrage of rockets from Gaza into Israel, has positioned Prime Minister Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu in a precarious situation, which offers two alternative routes going forward, both of which carry risks for Israel.
On one end, Israel has invested much effort on the diplomatic level to prevent a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state on September 20 during the General Debate of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. Should Israel's diplomacy aimed at preventing an ill-advised unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood succeed, Hamas would gain because they do not have any interest in seeing a Palestinian state without their control. An even more confident Hamas, obviously, is bad news for Israel. On the other end, the Israeli Prime Minister swiftly ordered retaliatory measures, hitting terrorist leadership and installations in the Gaza Strip, leaving open the option of a more decisive Israeli attack. In case of such an attack the Palestinian Authority (PA) would benefit and prolong their intransigence to make peace with Israel through negotiations. Whichever choice he makes there will be unintended consequences: Bibi's dilemma.
It is ironic that whichever path Netanyahu eventually pursues one of the rival Palestinian parties -- the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip -- will inevitably benefit. An aggressive campaign against Hamas and their terrorist allies would go a long way to restore Israel's deterrence. But the PA would immediately gain sympathy points due to the reflexive siding of the international community with the perceived underdog.
Netanyahu can't be accused of not having tried diplomacy to re-start peace talks and avoid unilateral Palestinian moves at the UN, to which Israel firmly objects. A recent report surfaced describing a secret dialogue between Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and President Shimon Peres. Such a dialogue will have been initiated or acquiesced to by the Prime Minister's Office.
Should Netanyahu forgo a stronger military retaliation and instead focus on a diplomatic effort to undermine the PA's unilateral statehood campaign, a likely winner will be Hamas. Israel might be able to peel away from the support for the Palestinian move and key players, such as the EU, and the UN will come their senses as to how best to promote peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Hamas leadership that loathes Abbas would love to see him weakened once his promises of an international imprimatur and approval of Palestinian national aspirations would be disappointed. In the eyes of the Palestinians, with their hopes high, Abbas will not have delivered the goods. Hamas remains concerned that its so-far uncontested rule in Gaza would be undermined should the Abbas and the PA be able to further improve lives in the West Bank and win support of the Gazans.
Militarily, a broader and more severe operation, which would include a massive aerial campaign, targeted killings and other elements, is still in the cards. The decision to go ahead or not with this campaign might be the toughest one Netanyahu has to make to date: Should he continue the so far fruitless diplomatic efforts on re-starting negotiations with the PA and attempting to prevent unilateral Palestinian moves, or should he engage in an iron-fist campaign, which would have the potential to restore Israel's deterrence but might again coalesce the Arab world and re-focus their anger away from the domestic lack of democracy and economic plight and zoom in on Israel. These choices, for sure, are not fully mutually exclusive but each would represent an important signal with respective pros and cons.
Complications from the terror attacks in Israel's south and subsequent military actions extend far beyond the Israel-Palestinian track. Despite a reported ceasefire and calls by Hamas on Palestinian terrorist groups to abide by it rockets from Gaza continue to be launched against Israel. It is surprising that Hamas's iron grip on the Gaza Strip is not enough to actually stop the bombing and shelling. Unable to deliver any tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Gazans, Hamas and its terrorist subsidiaries distract them by resorting to stirring hatred of Israel. While the true support of and desire for a unilateral declaration of statehood via the UN is unclear it is obvious, however, that Abbas knew how to position the General Assembly efforts.
This pattern of putting cause and effect on its head is well known: Israel will be portrayed as attacking innocent Palestinians while the true goal is to take out rockets launchers, destroy training camps, weapons depots, and eliminate terrorist masterminds who prefer to dwell and hide in civilian areas. These sympathy points would go far in encouraging Abbas in pursuing a UN vote on what better would have been negotiated bilaterally between the parties involved. As an example of this pattern Spanish Foreign Minister Trinidad Jimenez steps forward, wanting to push his European Union (EU) colleagues toward a unified stance in favor of unilateral Palestinian moves toward a declaration of statehood. The timing of this statement suggests a link to Israel's response in the Gaza Strip. We learn: Few know as well as the PA how to turn a seeming setback into a public relations victory.
The gravest and therefore most important outcome of the string of terrorist acts, however, is that Hamas now controls the already fragile situation between Israel and Egypt at will. With this brazen daylight infiltration, supposedly even with use of Egyptian uniforms, Hamas created a situation that is fast spinning out of control. The fallout in Egypt, therefore, is dramatic and deeply troubling: Raging demonstrating crowds at the Israeli embassy in Cairo take down and burn the Israeli flag. This might be a mere glimpse of the hatred of Israel Egyptians share. Wednesday terrorist infiltration into Israel from Egypt's grave incidents resulted not only in casualties on the Israeli and Palestinian sides, but also cost the lives of Egyptian security personnel, apparently hit during the Israeli chase after the terrorists returned back to the Sinai desert during their escape. Egypt's military rulers assumed a confrontational posture of the Egyptians deaths while an alarmed international community rushed to de-escalate the tensions.
The current crisis provides Bibi with a chance to make an implicit statement about the dramatic turmoil that has engulfed the Arab World over the past eight months. He and his cabinet have so far refrained from doing so. Bibi's determined and immediate response to the terror attacks will send a clear signal that Israel -- while sympathetic to the popular demand of democracy and economic opportunity -- will leave unchallenged any attempt at undermining Israel's security and/or her military superiority. Any vacuum that allows extremists to plan, prepare, and implement terrorist activities will be decisively challenged. After the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak the security situation in the Sinai has deteriorated and, with shocking ease, been turned into a terrorist haven. For Israel there is every reason to condone hot pursuits of terrorist even onto Egyptian territory from where the perpetrators infiltrated Israel. This power vacuum had already had the Israeli government agree to an increase of Egyptian troops in the Sinai, in excess of the numbers stipulated in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. This decision was based on the assumption that their presence would more effectively fight the radicalism there.
Such an uncompromising fight led by Bibi will also send a clear message to Israel's enemies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon: They shall not be under any illusion with regard to Israel. Israel will not allow radical groups and terrorists, emboldened by the Arab uprisings, to try to change the balance of power in the region, to attack Israel or to undermine the country's deterrence.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is determined to send a signal of Israel's resolve to defend herself again any challenge -- and any challengers -- to its security. This positioning is also a signal to the Obama administration, which hopes to avoid any escalation in an already sensitive situation in the region. While Israel is sympathetic to the Arab desire for democracy the government will not merely observe efforts to renew pan-Arab unity aimed against Israel. Bibi is at a crucial junction where he needs to pick one option. Whichever path he chooses will just be the lesser evil.
Yet again, we are faced with the notion that if your only tool is a hammer, every issue is perceived as a nail to be hammered. The 3 Bs of current Israeli policy: Bomb, block (physically and diplomatically) and build (settlements).
Netanyahu wanted to string out the current situation. It is now string out. However, the status quo has changed substantially and not to the benefit of Israel's immobility. The author throws in the Sinai, Hezbollah, 1979, Arab democracy, "confrontational" Egyptian authorities (when their officers get killed possibly by Israeli fire - how dare they?) - anything except facing up to the core Palestinian issues.
Perhaps the writer has not heard that it was Netanyahu who ordered Peres to end the dialogue as soon as he was made aware of it.
de mise. as long as the rokkits keep raining, and sni pers keep shoowting, all being aimed
at iszrali civilians….there will not be security. iszrael will always def end herself, and her citizens.
stop the P's indi scr im in ate attks, and there will be security.
better then the p's.
Baitel's frustration here is not surprising, since he is pretty much just a PR machine for the Israeli government, so it doesn't appear he has ever taken seriously the idea that Israeli policy could be unwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CkImOGcHcw
he said in the vid there is no place for a 2 state solution, only for 1 big palestine. I don't see any problem for israel only for the palestinians who talk one thing in front of the world media, and when they talk to the media of their country say complitly different things.
not the case of bibi. bibi is a little lier if you comper him to Abbas and the PA people.
The pro-israeli propaganda is deafening
Al-Jazeera gives a fair view of the ME situation....check them.
on the Eastern part of Tripoli due to the lock of ammunition
"In case of such an attack the Palestinian Authority (PA) would benefit and prolong their intransigence to make peace with Israel through negotiations. "
I can not see how a Military Campaign in Gaza can improve Abbas' image, or at least, not amongst his own and other Arab people. On the contrary, he was widely criticised by some, and blatantly called a "collaborator" by others during "Cast Lead", and some even accused him of cooperating with the Israelis to mark the targets in Gaza.
quote 2: "While Israel is sympathetic to the Arab desire for democracy"
- but denies democracy for Palestinians?
- but insists on maintaining the occupation ?
Bibi will choose the path he believes will bring him the most political gain, in short term, just like any other politician.
35 most beautiful women that have adorned our screens over the past decades.
The Arabs have been the world's favorite cause since 1907 when the annual worldwide sales of automobiles jumped from 5,000 (1906) to 75,000 (1907). During WW2, every Arab country except Jordan sided with the Axis. When the war ended, all the OTHER Axis governments (outside the ME) were compelled to fold up but the Allies allowed those Arab Axis nations to go on about their business, same as usual.
They paid no price, political or otherwise for supporting the Third Reich. These same nations then embarked on attacking Israel, again and again. Each time, the UN moved at the appropriate moment (I say "appropriate" to mean when it appeared that the Arabs were about to lose) to create a stalemate. Even the terror organization Hamas has been allowed (perhaps encouraged) to retain its control over Gaza after its losing attacks on Israel several years ago.
If there is no price to be paid for attacking Israel, then the attacks will likely continue. What Israel does or does not do diplomatically is of very limited practical moment.
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2011/01/video-dr-jacques-gauthier-whose.html
The PA, on the other hand, does NOT want peace. While they do not necessarily want war NOW, they want a continuation of conflict. The reason is clear: for many years now, they have been "selling" to the hapless Arab Palestinian masses ("hapless" because they do not have the benefit of free press, free information and free public debate) the hope of somehow regaining all the so-called "historic Palestine". PA has neither the leadership nor the honesty of telling them that this is nothing but chasing the wind. Hence, for these old and corrupt fatah "leaders" (in no way different from Gadhaffi, Assad, Mubarak and the rest of the Arab tyrants) ending the conflict means admitting defeat and potentially losing their positions -- if not their lives.
and first in $$$$ in the world, per capita. ya think for a minute they want that to stop?
ha mas has become rich, and they don't care about the people…..
so yes, they are more than happy to continue with the status quo.
If you are right then Israel should try something knew and make a peace proposal which would actually constitute a two state solution. Their habit of offering proposals that human beings could never be expected to accept has kind of muddied the issue and made it look like a two state solution and permanent peace is not their actual goal, and that they place more priority on maintaining settlements in the West Bank and keeping the Palestinians under effective Israeli control as in Gaza.
Is it really? How many scores of police cadets did Israel wipe out in that first strike on Gaza in 2006?
Since then Israel has made it a policy to attack law enforcement in Gaza, undermine the infrastructure of Hamas and kill its leaders - so how exactly is it a surprise that these attacks have had the intended effect?
In fact, the whole argument is based on a false assumption: that Hamas really WANTS to stop rockets from being fired. That assumption is based on much hope and naivety, but little else. In fact, some of the rockets fired against Israel are Iranian-made GRAD rockets. They are not made in Gaza and could only come through tunnels, which are completely under the control of Hamas.
In fact, Hamas is trying to pursue the old PA tactic: rather than conducting the attacks, let other organization do it and then claim "innocence" and "impotence". It did not work for PA and will not work for Hamas: the responsibility for repeated acts of war committed from a territory falls on the entity controling the territory. It is up to them to exercise effective control -- or relinquish control alltogether.
So whats the point of Blowing up hamas buildings and killing their leaders if it has precisely zero effect?