reason
05-01-09, 11:51
Leading article: Gaza will not find peace until Hamas ceases to be a threat- But Israel's ground offensive holds immediate and long-term dangers
The Independent
Monday, 5 January 2009
The conflict in the Gaza Strip has entered a new and still more dangerous phase with the start of Israel's long-predicted ground offensive. Israeli tanks streamed into the territory on Saturday night and were swiftly engaged in fierce fighting that continued through yesterday. Regrettable though the latest escalation is, it was probably inevitable, once a week of Israeli air bombardment had failed to stem the rocket attacks by Hamas fighters. The certainty that Hamas now possesses missiles capable of striking 25 miles into Israel would have supplied Israeli politicians and generals with another argument for a ground assault. Until the threat from Hamas is at least contained, if not destroyed, there is little chance of either side heeding outside pressure to desist. To say that is not to be fatalistic or unimaginative; it is to be realistic.
There is no reason at this stage to doubt Israel's description of its ground assault as "defensive" – in the sense that its prime objective is to stop the rocket attacks and improve security for its citizens in the south. Israel has nothing to gain by re-occupying land that it withdrew from, with undisguised relief, more than three years ago. A ground war is not something to be embarked upon lightly. Israeli troops are now exposed to death, injury and capture and to becoming perilously bogged down. Too many reversals, and the whole operation could very quickly become as much of a liability to the governing Kadima party on the eve of the election as a failure to have acted at all.
With neither Israel nor Hamas in any mood to countenance a ceasefire, however, it is also worth noting that appeals from the outside would carry more conviction if they also came with some positive and practical suggestions for what might happen next. So far, in public at least, constructive proposals have been conspicuous by their absence. Indeed, circumstances have almost conspired to leave the field for such initiatives vacant.
The US is effectively between presidents. Barack Obama is unlikely to say anything until after his inauguration. George Bush, whose only comment on the situation has been tardy and insubstantial, is bowing out as one of the least esteemed presidents ever. Whereas Bill Clinton was held in sufficient regard to be mediating, fruitlessly as it turned out, between Israel and the Palestinians to the end, Mr Bush did not command the authority to bring the two sides together. The international quartet's envoy, Tony Blair, has only now surfaced in Jerusalem.
With the Palestinians divided between supporters of Hamas and Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah, support for the fighters in Gaza from their West Bank compatriots has been muted. Something similar can be said of the Arab countries, many of whose leaders regard Hamas as an embarrassment. They cannot, though, seem to be supporting Israel.
European Union involvement in some sort of security guarantees for Gaza and southern Israel may be a possibility. But the EU's capacity is limited and, here too, leadership is in transition, because the presidency has only just passed from France to the Czech Republic. The best hope must be that President Sarkozy, who is due in the region today, and who met Israel's foreign minister and would-be Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, in Paris last week, might arrive with something more than hand-wringing platitudes. To quell the conflict, though, that something would have to have Israel's security as its bottom line.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-gaza-will-not-find-peace-until-hamas-ceases-to-be-a-threat-1225818.html?startindex=10
The Independent
Monday, 5 January 2009
The conflict in the Gaza Strip has entered a new and still more dangerous phase with the start of Israel's long-predicted ground offensive. Israeli tanks streamed into the territory on Saturday night and were swiftly engaged in fierce fighting that continued through yesterday. Regrettable though the latest escalation is, it was probably inevitable, once a week of Israeli air bombardment had failed to stem the rocket attacks by Hamas fighters. The certainty that Hamas now possesses missiles capable of striking 25 miles into Israel would have supplied Israeli politicians and generals with another argument for a ground assault. Until the threat from Hamas is at least contained, if not destroyed, there is little chance of either side heeding outside pressure to desist. To say that is not to be fatalistic or unimaginative; it is to be realistic.
There is no reason at this stage to doubt Israel's description of its ground assault as "defensive" – in the sense that its prime objective is to stop the rocket attacks and improve security for its citizens in the south. Israel has nothing to gain by re-occupying land that it withdrew from, with undisguised relief, more than three years ago. A ground war is not something to be embarked upon lightly. Israeli troops are now exposed to death, injury and capture and to becoming perilously bogged down. Too many reversals, and the whole operation could very quickly become as much of a liability to the governing Kadima party on the eve of the election as a failure to have acted at all.
With neither Israel nor Hamas in any mood to countenance a ceasefire, however, it is also worth noting that appeals from the outside would carry more conviction if they also came with some positive and practical suggestions for what might happen next. So far, in public at least, constructive proposals have been conspicuous by their absence. Indeed, circumstances have almost conspired to leave the field for such initiatives vacant.
The US is effectively between presidents. Barack Obama is unlikely to say anything until after his inauguration. George Bush, whose only comment on the situation has been tardy and insubstantial, is bowing out as one of the least esteemed presidents ever. Whereas Bill Clinton was held in sufficient regard to be mediating, fruitlessly as it turned out, between Israel and the Palestinians to the end, Mr Bush did not command the authority to bring the two sides together. The international quartet's envoy, Tony Blair, has only now surfaced in Jerusalem.
With the Palestinians divided between supporters of Hamas and Fatah, and the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah, support for the fighters in Gaza from their West Bank compatriots has been muted. Something similar can be said of the Arab countries, many of whose leaders regard Hamas as an embarrassment. They cannot, though, seem to be supporting Israel.
European Union involvement in some sort of security guarantees for Gaza and southern Israel may be a possibility. But the EU's capacity is limited and, here too, leadership is in transition, because the presidency has only just passed from France to the Czech Republic. The best hope must be that President Sarkozy, who is due in the region today, and who met Israel's foreign minister and would-be Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, in Paris last week, might arrive with something more than hand-wringing platitudes. To quell the conflict, though, that something would have to have Israel's security as its bottom line.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-gaza-will-not-find-peace-until-hamas-ceases-to-be-a-threat-1225818.html?startindex=10