For several years Hamas and other Palestinian groups have been firing short-range rockets into Israeli territory from Gaza, mostly aimed at the nearby Israeli city of Siderot. Although one cannot know with certainty what is in the minds of the leaders of these groups, it is possible to hazard a guess concerning their short and long-term strategic objectives. Short-term, Hamas may want to create a situation in which the Israelis, unable to stop the rockets by conventional military or diplomatic means, agree to a hudna, a truce in which, to start with, several hundred Palestinian prisoners are exchanged for the single Israeli prisoner held by Hamas, Gaza is assured normal fuel, food and electricity supplies, and the border to Egypt is reopened, monitored Egyptian border, and Hamas is recognized as the power in charge of Gaza. Such a deal would be a model for a later truce for the West Bank, if and when, Hamas gains control of the territory. Such an agreement would be a strategic defeat for Israel because Hamas is openly committed to its destruction and will make no deal that includes recognition of Israel's right to exist. It would also be unacceptable to the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Jordan, none of which have any interest in enhancing the power of a radical Ismamist regime in Gaza. The long range strategic goal of Hamas might be to use its rockets over an ever-increasing area of Israel to make life untenable for Israelis and their state. This, however, might be a very dangerous policy to pursue because of the kinds of massive retaliations of which the Israelis are capable.
Steven Erlanger of the New York Times has written an analysis of the dilemmas facing Israel in dealing with Gaza, "For Israel, Gaza Offers A Range of Risky Choices."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
From the above scenario, it seems like th Hamas has cornered Israel into concessions. Check mate. In the long run, this may be a good time in history to offer a peace treaty, reopen the borders and so forth. Perhaps Israel can use the timeliness of the action to try to shift the Palestinian problem to other Arab nations.
I think this specific dispute will never be settled between the two parties in the manner we are already entrenched. There needs to be a higher, stronger arbiter of peace; perhaps the US, or ideally the UN Security Council. It's too bad we clearly chose a side, and forfeited our negotiating rights in the Arab world.
Then again, you cannot negotiate with a group which feels it has nothing to loose and everything to gain. Perhaps we never had any negotiation stance after all.
Post a Comment