ISRAEL AND THE TRUCE WITH HAMAS

There is a widely shared gloom among Israelis that the nation is facing alarming threats from both within and without.  Negotiating with Hamas, many believe, is an admission of national failure, for Hamas’s radicalism is vicious and bent on Israel’s destruction.  Further, to even think of returning the Golan Heights to Syria is to admit another defeat, for Syria had regularly bombarded Israel with artillery when it owned the Golan.  Why would they do differently if Israel returns that track of land?  As Ethan Bronner comments, “The backdrop for all of this is the fear of Iran’s growing power and the world’s inability so far to stop it from working on atomic weaponry.  But it is not only foreign relations that so depresses the Israeli public.  It is also that their political system is in crisis with the leaders under investigation and feuding among themselves.”  On top of these anxieties are the missing Israeli soldiers—one captured by Hamas and two by Hezbollah—that remain a source of national anxiety and shame.  Israel is small and it really functions almost like family.  When one family suffers (as the families of these missing soldiers do) then the entire nation suffers.  Israelis relate to one another like members of a large family. 

But perhaps even more importantly is to focus again on the role of Iran and its relationship to Israel.  The historian, Michael Oren, comments that the roots of this national anxiety go back to “the summer of 2005 and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.  The evacuation, intended to free Israel of Gaza’s political and strategic burden, was hailed as a victory by Palestinian terrorist groups, above all Hamas.”  Therefore, Hamas began to fire some 1,000 rockets and mortar shells on Israel.  Hezbollah was equally emboldened to do the same from southern Lebanon, culminating in the 2006 war between Lebanon (really Hezbollah) and Israel, where Israel was once again humbled.  This led to Hamas overthrowing Gaza’s Fatah-led government and it began launching thousands more rockets on Israel.  As with Hezbollah in 2006, Hamas has won by not losing to Israel.  “Its leaders still walked Gaza’s streets freely while children in Sderot and other Israeli border towns cowered in bomb shelters.  Like Hezbollah, which recently wrested unprecedented powers from the Lebanese parliament, Hamas parlayed its military success into political capital.”  As a result of the truce negotiated by Egypt, Hamas has gained greater benefits than if it had engaged in direct negotiations.  In exchange for giving its word to halt rocket attacks and arms smuggling, Hamas receives the right to monitor the main border crossings into Gaza and to enforce a truce in the West Bank, where Fatah retains formal control.  Hamas now has the chance to regroup and rearm.  Oren comments:  “Hamas initiated a vicious war against Israel, destroyed and disrupted myriad Israeli lives, and has been rewarded with economic salvation and international prestige.”  He concludes that “Iran is the cease-fire’s ultimate beneficiary.  Having already surrounded Israel on three of its borders—Gaza, Lebanon, Syria—Iran is poised to penetrate the West Bank.  By activating these fronts, Tehran can divert attention from its nuclear program and block any diplomatic effort.”  The cost of this truce and any dealings with Hamas or Hezbollah may very well be war for Israel.  It is for this reason that so many Israelis are profoundly anxious.  There is a national dread about its future, for its enemies, more powerful and more radical than ever, are poised on its borders.  Israel cannot negotiate out of this challenge.  And war with these enemies will be more ferocious and more devastating for its population than ever.  Israel remains a nation fighting for its very survival. 

For these reasons, the next US president will need to declare very early that the US will stand with Israel.  To be blunt and very honest, I am very concerned about this presidential election, for the US must be adamant that it will never tolerate the destruction of Israel.  Will Barack Obama make that clear?  Will he declare unequivocally that he will support Israel’s survival at any cost?  Will he try to negotiate with Iran, even though it has never given any indication that it will keep its word?  The next president of the United States cannot equivocate when it comes to the survival of Israel.  I am not certain that Obama, the current front runner, will maintain that incontrovertible and unbreakable pledge of commitment to Israel.  Since 1948, the US has stood with Israel.  Had that commitment not been solid, it is doubtful that Israel would have survived.  Our next president must renew that kind of commitment.  We will not tolerate Iran’s attempts to destroy Israel and we will stand with Israel in its battle with both Hamas and Hezbollah. 

See Oren’s essay in the Wall Street Journal (19 June 2008) and Bronner’s essay in the New York Times (22 June 2008).

Print