This past weekend, southern Israel was hit by more than 200 rockets flying over the border from Hamas-controlled Gaza. Dozens of the missiles were intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system but most got through with some casualties and damage. The lives of more than a million Israelis living in the southern part of the country were disrupted by the assault. Schools were closed as the population was urged to take shelter until the latest crisis passed.
To the extent the world is paying much attention to this (it was overshadowed by the story of the American soldier who murdered Afghan civilians) it has been in the form of the usual “cycle of violence” stories that depict the situation as one in which both Israel and the Palestinians are seen as being at fault. As is generally the case, the focus quickly shifts to efforts to reinstate a cease-fire, with Secretary of State Clinton condemning the missile fire while also calling for both sides to show “restraint.” But the real issue here is not who started it or how well the Iron Dome system is working. It is the way Israel must learn to live with an independent Palestinian state in Gaza in all but name that is run by terrorists. Those who continue to demand Israel withdraw completely from the West Bank and Jerusalem, as they did from Gaza in 2005, need to understand the lessons of that failed experiment will not be forgotten.
This latest dustup along the border started when the Israeli Defense Forces acted to foil an impending terror attack being launched by one of the dissident Islamic groups that operate in Gaza with Hamas’s permission. The Popular Resistance Committees’ leader and several of his terrorist cadres were killed by Israeli action. The Palestinians responded with a massive missile barrage in response to the Israeli “aggression.” But as Israelis who live in the region know, missile fire from Gaza is hardly an unusual occurrence. Since the cease-fire agreed to by Hamas and Israel in January 2009, more than 1,200 rockets have been fired from Gaza, including 100 in just the last month prior to this weekend’s fighting.
The missiles are a fact of life in southern Israel, and though the country has learned to live with this threat, it has taken a toll on the people who live there that is often ignored abroad as well as by some who live in the central part of the country not currently under fire. If anything, the improved missile defense has lessened some of the pressure on the Israeli government to consider a repeat of the December 2008 Operation Cast Lead in which the IDF conducted a counter-offensive designed to silence the intolerable attacks on the country.
But few in Israel are oblivious to the meaning of this standoff. By its withdrawal of every settlement, soldier and Jew from Gaza in 2005, Israel set the stage for the creation of a terrorist state there that has given an indifferent world a foretaste of what Palestinian independence looks like. The assumption then, reinforced by the presence of the legendarily tough Ariel Sharon in the prime minister’s office, was that any cross-border attacks would be met with such force as to make them unlikely. However, the terrorist government of the strip has launched terrorist attacks on Israel with relative impunity and counts on the international community’s outrage to force Israel to always respond to these provocations with the “restraint” that Secretary Clinton desires. It is far from clear the stricken Sharon would have been any more capable of reversing this situation than his successors Ehud Olmert or Benjamin Netanyahu.
While few in Israel seek a permanent return to Gaza as they have no interest in ruling over Palestinians there, possible negotiations with the Palestinian Authority about withdrawal from the West Bank are necessarily informed by this example. Should the West Bank become as much of a no-go zone for the IDF as Gaza is, the likelihood of its long border with central Israel turning into another battleground is a nightmare for Israelis. With Hamas now planning on joining Fatah in the government of the West Bank, it takes little imagination to understand what a sovereign Palestinian state there would mean for Israel’s security. Rather than rockets flying over just the southern portion of the country, Hamas would acquire the ability to terrorize the whole of Israel as well as to interdict flights out of its international airport. No missile defense system could possibly protect the nation under those circumstances.
The vast majority of Israelis, including the majority of the members of its right-of-center government, have embraced a two-state solution as the answer to the conflict. Were the PA to return to the negotiating table, they would find most Israelis willing to talk about such an outcome. But the missiles flying out of Gaza provide us with a vision of what an independent Palestinian state actually looks like. So long as the Palestinian sovereignty is expressed in this manner, there is little chance Israel will be so foolish as to repeat the failed experiment in Gaza.
For al lthose who are thinking of voting for Obama and are blind to his anti-israel bias, this is another example (how many do we need?) of this. For Secretary Clinton to call "on both sides' to show restraint (her actual words) ,is a travesty fo the truth and feeds the suspicion of Israelis that Obama has no interest in their security. The news reports only speak about the fire from israel, following the 'assasination" of a Palestinian militant. Totally forgotten in all this is the fact the United States sends out drones and actually kills many of its enemies in just such the same way, without any outcry by the world. The result of Israel doing the same was a barrage of rockets into israel proper- into large cities like Ashdod. And Clinton asks "both' sides to show restraint? What do you think the United States would do if their cities like El Paso and San Diego would have rockets raining upon them every day? Do you think, for one moment, that any credible government would show "restraint"? A vote for Obama is a vote against Israel ,as simple as that.
Tobin talks about the "failed experiment" in Gaza, but he forgets to acknowledge that most Commentary types were all-in for "disengagement" at the time while many more realistic Jews here and in Israel opposed leaving Gaza – and accurately predicted the outcome. As is all too obvious now, disengagement's opponents were right and its supporters were dead wrong – although few or any have had the intellectual integrity to admit it.
Leftists now claim that Sharon's error was in leaving Gaza without first negotiating a settlement. Even if this had been possible (which it wasn't), a negotiated settlement would have meant nothing. Recall that the leadership back then was Fatah. Within 3 weeks of Israel's exit (and clearly unimportant whether it was negotiated or unilateral), Fatah's fighters were being thrown out of windows by Hamas which repudiates every written agreement undertaken by Fatah. negotiated settlements with Palestinians are not even good for a 3 weeks.
The so-called peace process is dead. Nothing will resurrect it in the immediate future. Not pressure from the United States, nor the EU nor the Quartet. Every attack from Gaza puts another nail in the Peace Camp's coffin and reinforces those in the Israeli government that understand what must be done. One can only imagine the impact on Israel and it's security situation with an Obama re-election in 2012. Go your own way Israel and do what must be done.
Good analysis by Tobin. Talk of a two state solution right now is chimeric. The problem is what to do tiil a real solution presents itself, if ever, since the example of Gaza and the vulnerability of the heart of Israel to attack from the West Bank require continued patrolling vigilance over the West Bank. For ultimately the passing of time favors the Palestinians. It's extremely worry making. I'd like to read a persuasive account of what Israel might do over the long term with no resolution in sight that works to its long term advantage.
Israel embarked on it’s efforts to forge an agreement with the residens of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district after The Egyptian Israeli Peace Accord was signed. Such efforts were encouraged in the agreement signed at Camp David, however, PM M. Begin made it very clear Israel would not negotiate with The plo/arafatz, but seek out those who were not tainted by terrorism with the goal of limited autonomy. There were leaders who qualified, except they were killed or maimed by plo/arafatz. Shamir followed Begin’s lead and was perhaps even more skeptical. That all ended with PM Rabin’s erroneous decision to discard and throw to the wind the protections PM’s Begin and Shamir held in place to refuse dealing with plo/arafatz, when Rabin did just that at Oslo.
I would respectfully argue that Oslo was the experiment which failed when plo/arafatz did not respond to Barak’s offer and started a shooting war. What came after was one Israeli mistake after another. The only reason it continued was that it was kept on life support by The Nations. The goal was to start a process in which Israel would be led down the primrose path of compromise and whatever happens happens. In other words, the end of Israel as we know it. Oslo was a great advancement toward Israel’s demise. Even arafatz, the deceiver, the unrepentant terrorist murderer and liar spoke th etruth to his own people. Yet civilized world did not want to see that.
By the time Sharon came around, Israel was being pressured to withdraw from Judea and Samaria so since Sharon had no intention of doing that, he offered ‘Gaza First’ as an ‘experiment’, as Mr. Tobin points out. However, it was not a real experiment. Everyone knew what would happen.
I communicated my concern directly to someone who is presently a Minister in the present Israeli Netanyahu Gov’t, I’ll leave the name out. I argued that just months before the proposed evacuations from Gaza, it seemed to me, Gaza was going to be taken over by Hamas. This was after Sharon had won all of the referendum voting and had Knesset approval. I plead to the minister was there not someting that could be done,any mechanism “at this late date and despite the approval of the Knesset.”
He stated my concerns were in place but had no idea of any way to stop it. If I could figure that out myself, so could PM Sharon and his advisers, let us not fool ourselves. The peace process has reached a dead end. Not for the near term but for the long haul. That is clear. Egypt just reinforces the dynamic.
You I think I've finally figured it out. Those joos during the Holocaust were equally guilty by not showing restraint. Yes, yes, the Nazis should've shown restraint of their own; but the Holocaust would've been a much, ahem, nicer experience if only both sides showed restraint. n…At least according to Obama administration.
Ah!!! The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. I've heard this for about 4-5 years. I, for one, never believed that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral. It had the appearance of being unilateral. But I believed that it was a deal between Bush and Sharon. The quid pro quo for the deal was the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam. The deal was hatched between 9/11 and 3/2003 by 3-4 face to face meetings and many phone calls. Sharon announced the withdrawal in mid 2004, to be implemented in 2005. This delay was designed to remove any linkage between the two events. On top of that Sharon got more promises from Bush.