Israel Debates No. 16 11 November 2014 Following the war between Israel and Hamas: New political horizons for the peace process? Dear readers, For this issue of Israel Debates we have once again asked two authors to discuss the political consequences of this summer’s war between Israel and Hamas. These hostilities triggered heated debates in Israeli society and politics, focusing on Israel’s future prospects in a region characterized for decades by stable instability. The political debate is split down the middle. On the one side are those who cannot envisage a future for Israel unless it is based on military deterrence and strength, particularly in the light of the regional changes in the years since the Arab Spring. For Efraim Inbar, Director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Israel has no choice other than to continue to live by the sword for many more years. There is a majority in Israeli society that supports this position, which is also reflected clearly in surveys, showing that a majority have more faith in Prime Minister Netanyahu than any other candidate. On the other side, Shaul Arieli, one of the prominent representatives of the Geneva peace initiative who has been involved in a number of negotiations between Israel and Palestine, argues that new diplomatic horizons have emerged for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. True, this presupposes that the Israeli government, and in particular Prime Minister Netanyahu, will have to send out unequivocal messages giving the go ahead for the two-state solution. Although there is a relative majority in the Knesset for a two- state solution, in current surveys their representatives received fewer seats than previously. Both authors are skeptical about the political conditions for a peace agreement on the Palestinian side. Arieli presupposes that Hamas would accept a two-state reality, but only as an interim solution on the way to achieving its long term goal: the liberation of Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. This latest war has changed nothing, he argues. True, Hamas’s relative political position within Palestinian politics has been strengthened, while Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO have tried to inject new impetus into the peace process through a United Nations resolution. For Shaul Arieli, a Security Council resolution is the best chance of exerting positive influence on the internal political processes in Israel and with the Palestinians, thereby enhancing the chances of opening up new diplomatic horizons. In Efraim Inbar’s view, given the other threats in the region in the shape of the Islamic State and the disintegration of Arab nation states, the international community is not interested in bringing pressure to bear on Israel and the Palestinians to change the status quo. His presupposition is that most of the world’s countries can live with an unresolved Palestine question. He also views the political Left in Israel and Europe as having been manifestly weakened and lost its legitimacy as a result of the failure of the Oslo process. For Inbar and Arieli alike, at the moment the West’s priority is tackling the military and political situation vis-à-vis the Islamic State, and not solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dr. Werner Puschra, Director, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel Herzliya, 11 November, 2014 After the War in Gaza children to hate Jews no peace is within reach. The PA is also engaged in a delegitimization By Efraim Inbar campaign that seeks ultimately to bring an end to the State of Israel, as exemplified by Mahmoud Introduction Abbas' recent speech in the UN. The most recent military operation in Gaza, “Operation Protective Edge” (July-August 2014), In July 2014, following yet another recurrence of was the longest war in Israel’s history, lasting 50 rocket fire launched by Hamas on Israel's civilian days. Its main goal was to stop the indiscriminate population, Israel decided once again to engage fire directed at Israel by Hamas, a radical Islamist in a massive military operation in Gaza under the terrorist organization. Gaza has been ruled by assumption that it is engaged in a protracted Hamas since its military coup of June 2007. intractable conflict where a patient strategy of Since, rather than focusing on state building, attrition is needed to significantly degrade the Hamas acted on its ideological commitment to capabilities of Hamas to harm Israel. This was destroy the Jewish state and has launched many achieved. About one third of Hamas’ missile thousands of rockets on Israel. Israel responded arsenal and most of its missile production by a blockade and occasional military measures infrastructure was destroyed. It is presumed that trying to put an end to Hamas fire. This article most of the attack tunnels (32) were demolished, presents an analysis of the outcome of this war. and almost one thousand Hamas fighters and a Subsequently it looks at the appropriate policy few of its leaders were eliminated. More targeted option in a region that is descending into an killings and an earlier removal of some of the increasingly brutish Hobbesian reality. self-imposed constraints upon Israel on the use of airpower might have speeded Hamas’ Initial Assessment of the Gaza War acceptance of a ceasefire and might have spared Hamas was defeated by Israel in “Operation Gaza much destruction. Protective Edge,” but not destroyed. Its destruction was not a goal of Israel’s military On August 25, Hamas finally capitulated to the campaign due to its inhibitive cost and length. Egyptian cease fire proposal that it had Moreover, Israel merely wanted a weakened previously rejected since July 15. The unlimited Hamas to continue to rule Gaza, as opposed to ceasefire, as Egypt and Israel demanded, having a single entity ruling over both Gaza and constituted the precondition for future the West Bank. The separation between Gaza negotiations, and it had no input from Qatar and and the West Bank serves Israel’s interest in Turkey, both Hamas supporters, who were weakening the Palestinian national movement, interested in gaining a foothold in the nego- which has been and remains a mortal enemy (not tiations. All crossings into Gaza will continue to a peace partner), at least for the foreseeable be controlled by Israel and Egypt, making sure future. A large majority (over 70%) of the Israelis that the rearmament of Hamas will not be easy. do not believe that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is capable of reaching a historic compromise with For this strategy, see Efraim Inbar and Eitan Shamir, “Mowing the Grass: Israel’s Strategy for Zionism (the Jewish national movement). As long Protracted Intractable Conflict,” Journal of Strategic as the PA and Hamas continue to educate their Studies 37 (February 2014). Egypt even forced Hamas to swallow a bitter pill garnering domestic and international legitimacy, such as the presence of the PA at the Rafah but might have a corrosive effect on Israel’s crossing. The Hamas “victory speeches” cannot deterrence in the long run. Such qualities, erase the fact that Hamas eventually gave in commendable in a democracy, do not enhance unconditionally to Egyptian-Israeli pressure. Israel’s deterrence in the Middle East. Eagerness to fight, determination and ruthlessness are the Despite wholly unjustified international criticism prerequisites for building deterrence in a tough of Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force, Israel neighborhood. was allowed a 50 day period, quite extensive in comparison to previous rounds, to pulverize Unfortunately, the military campaign against Hamas installations and their surroundings. It Hamas underscored tensions in US-Israel was clear that a large number of Arab states relations. The ambiguous attitudes and actions tacitly supported the Israeli endeavor to toward Israel on the part of the US administration administer a heavy blow on Hamas. Important signaled a lesser willingness to back its Middle international actors, such as India, China and East ally. Moreover, the US was largely irrelevant Russia, were rather mute on the Gaza issue for in the Gaza outcome, as it foolishly tried to their own reasons. Moreover, the US, the EU, involve Turkey and Qatar in management of the and parts of the international community also crisis and it failed to perceive the centrality of joined the demand for demilitarization of Gaza. Egypt in the Gaza equation. The Gaza war was This is of course unattainable without collecting yet another example of the confused Obama Hamas weaponry by force, but it delegitimizes administration's foreign policy towards the Middle Hamas' violence, while lending legitimacy to East. The American misfortune is also an Israeli Israel’s defensive measures. loss as Jerusalem needs and prefers a strong and relevant America. The Israeli “Iron Dome” anti-missile system neutralized almost all rockets fired at Israel’s “Protective Edge” left Gaza in Hamas' hands. population centers. Most of the country was little There is a widespread feeling of unease among affected by the Gaza war, although the sound of Israelis with this outcome. The frustration is sirens probably had a negative psychological understandable, but unwarranted. It shows, effect. Disciplined behavior on the part of the however, that Israeli society is ready to fight and civilian public minimized the loss of lives. But the sustain casualties to attain important goals. Yet, death toll was 72 (over sixty soldiers) and it is beyond Israel’s abilities to impose its hundreds of wounded. Limited damage was preferred leaders on its Arab neighbors. The caused primarily to Israeli property in the bitter truth is that Palestinians, in great numbers, proximity of Gaza. As a whole, the direct and like Hamas and its violence against Jews. But it indirect costs of the war, amounting to several is not easy to come to terms with the thought that billions of dollars, are bearable for the strong there is no resolution to the conflict in sight and Israeli economy.