By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
In the week-long war between
Israel and the Palestinians, slowly but surely signs have emerged of a new
"balance of terror" reflecting Hamas's enhanced ability to strike
back at Israel via the Iran-made long range Fajr-5 rocket.
Compared with the previous war
in 2009, when Hamas relied on the shorter range and more inaccurate rockets
that rattled southern Israel before a ceasefire went into effect, this time we
are witnessing a "more disciplined" and sophisticated Hamas missile
brigade that reportedly has some 15,000 military personnel operating through a
network of tunnels.
It comes as little surprise
then that Hamas has set its own conditions for a truce despite the deadly waves
of Israeli air bombardment that have resulted in the death or injury of
hundreds of civilians in the densely populated Gaza, described by professor
Noam Chomsky on his recent Gaza visit [1] as the world's largest open-prison.
Its inhabitants live in increasingly horrible and uninhabitable conditions as
the direct result of Israeli collective punishment of the population ruled by
Hamas, which now wants the lifting of the Israeli blockade of the area as a
term of truce.
There is nothing irrational or
outrageous about this demand. It is backed by the international community,
which deplores the suffering of civilians in the Gaza Strip. Israel is
inherently opposed to anything demanded by Hamas and, therefore, it is more
likely now that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will send his tanks into Gaza
on a wild goose chase for Hamas's rocket arsenal. In that case, the war will
get messier and the end result muddier, as it did in the 15-day operation in
2009, which ended well short of the stated objective of "destroying
Hamas's infrastructure".
If Hamas's military prowess
surprised the Israelis, then its upgraded rocket capability is an even bigger
surprise and carries ramifications that do not favor Israel in terms of the
regional balance of power. Despite having an "iron dome" shield to
intercept, according to reports, roughly 60% of incoming rockets, Israel is
today exhibiting an unprecedented vulnerability that is a far cry from the
"invincible" Israel proclaimed by its politicians.
Israel's goal appears to be a
division of Gaza thinly cloaked as a modest war aim, perhaps to cut off Gaza's
link to Egypt as much as possible since it is clear where the rockets come from.
This is a big objective, inviting a war of attrition.
The fact is that Israel
cannot, short of a full-scale and costly invasion and re-occupation of Gaza,
fully master its sky from Hamas rockets that now threaten a large portion of
the Israeli territory. This is not necessarily a negative development for
peace, since Israel's previous "total domination" was an invitation
for the status quo ante, discouraging any serious Israeli move toward
comprehensive peace.
There is now a new
"balance of terror". It is still deeply asymmetrical to Israel's
advantage, yet, since it features the Israeli geostrategic vulnerabilities
stated above, the new equation contains a potential plus for a more meaningful
bid for peace. Israeli political leaders may be unprepared for this grim new
reality, yet their military advisers can shed much light for them on the new
reality on the ground; ie, the game-changer is Hamas's ability to strike deep
inside Israel, an ability that is sure to grow even more in the coming years.
For now, however, there is a
definite lack of fit between the military and political thinking in Israel, and
unless the politicians, grudgingly or not, come to terms with it, they may rush
their country to the bossom of another war that would be a major drain on the
economy (by, for example, depleting the Israeli tourism industry).
Now the big question: what
will Israel lose and or gain by acceding to Hamas's demand for lifting the
blockade? The answer is determined partly by putting it in specific timeframes.
In the long run, a more prosperous Gaza - less agitated by its rampant poverty,
malnutrition, and water and other shortages - may be more amenable to
maintaining peace in order to secure its prized achievements, than a poor and
starving Gaza whose back is against the wall.
Unfortunately, many Israeli leaders are immune to an in-depth understanding of interdependence and its political ramifications, convincing themselves instead that they achieve more security by simply relying on brute force to bring their Palestinian opponents to their knees. This "compellence strategy" is fundamentally suspect however, and now in the light of the new "balance of terror" more than ever a product of the past.
Unfortunately, many Israeli leaders are immune to an in-depth understanding of interdependence and its political ramifications, convincing themselves instead that they achieve more security by simply relying on brute force to bring their Palestinian opponents to their knees. This "compellence strategy" is fundamentally suspect however, and now in the light of the new "balance of terror" more than ever a product of the past.
Perhaps what Israel needs more
than anything else is a post-Zionist enlightened leadership that is not
self-imprisoned in the arcane 19th century expansionist ideology and is instead
more in tune with the requirements of survival in the contemporary context of
globalization and regionalization. That would mean less arrogance and delusion
of military superiority, [2] and an admission of vulnerability that can, in
turn, create the hitherto absent impetus for understanding and sympathizing
with the suffering of the Palestinian "other", who is for now the
candidate for mere oppression.
Notes:
1. Impressions of Gaza, November 4, 2012.
2. Israel ranked as most militarized nation, Asia Times Online, Nov 15, 2012.
1. Impressions of Gaza, November 4, 2012.
2. Israel ranked as most militarized nation, Asia Times Online, Nov 15, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment