Biases drive conflict to the precipice

It's no wonder that the Gazan mindset has evolved into a siege mentality, leaving no room for mitigation and moderation.

By ALON BEN-MEIR
Pillar protest in West Bank 370 (photo credit: Abed Omar Qusini/Reuters)
Pillar protest in West Bank 370
(photo credit: Abed Omar Qusini/Reuters)
Israeli and Hamas officials have both argued how the other side is to blame for the current conflagration and the nature of the conflict. Listening to either side, one can come to a definite conclusion: they are both right. Upon closer scrutiny however, one finds that they are also dead wrong. Over the years, both sides have successfully managed to foster public perceptions that support their respective narratives and the notion that the other has wronged them. This conviction, coupled with a lack of unbiased and credible voices to the contrary, allow this violent and self-consuming conflict to fester, pushing both sides ever closer to the precipice.
It is pointless to try to establish which side is to blame for the recent flare-up. There was the deliberate firing by an Islamic Jihadist from Gaza on an Israeli jeep that wounded four Israeli soldiers. Israel in turn killed Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigade commander, Ahmed Jabari, in a pinpointed air assault. This is hardly relevant as the tit-for-tat that followed was not the simple result of initial attacks and counter-attacks. These incidents simply ignited a long simmering tension that would have exploded anyway since, at this particular juncture, both Israel and Hamas were determined to change the equation on the ground to their advantage.
Israel was determined to end Hamas’ and other Islamists’ largely unprovoked rocket attacks (nearly 750 were fired at Israel in the past 12 months) and to weaken, if not destroy, Hamas’ infrastructure. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, known for his national security credentials, acted forcefully in order to send the message to Hezbollah, Iran, and militants in Syria that Israel is prepared to deal with all contingencies. Netanyahu also wanted to consolidate his political base ahead of the Israeli general elections in January 2013.
Hamas, on the other hand, has several objectives in mind. First, it aimed to demonstrate its resolve and strength against the weaker Palestinian Authority (PA), which has achieved little for its peaceful posture toward Israel. Second, Hamas wanted to undermine the PA’s efforts to seek U.N. Observer State status as the representative of all Palestinians. Third, Hamas wanted to test the affinity and the commitment of the new Islamic Egyptian government and the extent to which it will rally behind their cause. In addition, Hamas wishes to garner the support of other Arab and Muslim states in the wake of the Arab Spring.  Finally, Hamas aspired to alleviate the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza by refocusing the world’s attention on the Israeli blockade.
From the Israeli perspective, Hamas is a terrorist organization and is recognized as such by the US and the European community. It is an irredentist foe, irredeemably committed to Israel’s destruction, and openly calls for and relentlessly supports other Islamic jihadists that attack Israeli targets. Hamas is further seen as the conduit for Iran’s regional misadventure; it has no interest in peace and, to the contrary, Hamas devotes much of its resources to buying weapons, especially rockets (instead of feeding their people) and plots to undermine Israel’s security while fostering and exploiting regional instability.
Hamas views Israel as a ruthless occupying power which is behind the plight of the Palestinian refugees who have been languishing in camps for more than six decades. They see Israel’s settlement enterprise as a clear manifestation of its intentions to continuously usurp Palestinian land and prevent them from establishing their own state. They accuse Israel of deliberately limiting the Palestinians’ mobility while enacting discriminatory policies that stifle Palestinian growth and prosperity. Moreover, Hamas views the Israeli blockade around the impoverished Gaza as inhumane, forcing people to live in poverty and denying them the basic right to live with dignity.
A cursory review of Israel and Hamas’ perceptions of each other suggests that their respective citizenry commonly accepts their assessments. The daily denunciations and the portrayals of each other in evil terms have done nothing but deepen distrust, intensify hatred and hostility and shatter any hope for reconciliation. It is no wonder that this mindset evolved into a siege mentality, leaving no room for mitigation, moderation and certainly no accommodation.
Yet both sides truly know that the other exists and will continue to exist. The death and destruction of recent days will leave nothing more than deeper scars and haunting nightmares.   The cease-fire will more than likely follow previous patterns that served as nothing more than respites until the next round of even-more intensified violence.
Hamas may think that they are riding high, claiming to have emerged “victorious” from the deadly confrontation with Israel.  From the ashes of the destruction and death of men, women, and children whom they use as human shields, they will seek to gain more political recognition.  Hamas uses the outcry of the relatively few Palestinians who want revenge and the show of support by the Arab states to bolster itself.
Yet it is deaf to the voices of the majority of Palestinians in Gaza who want to live in peace. They are sick and tired of being subjected to the whims of extremist leaders who wage wars in their names while destroying the very fabric of the society they presumably seek to protect. Hamas has done nothing but use the people as sacrificial lambs to promote its blind ambitions that will do nothing but bring greater havoc, helplessness and hopelessness to the people.
Not immune to blame, the Israeli government pretends to walk the high moral ground but it also subjects its own people to a long and protracted conflict, robbing the country of much of the values upon which it was founded. The occupation is a curse that justifiably portrays the historically-oppressed Jews as oppressors. Israel has created intolerable conditions in the territories by expropriating land, erecting barriers, building new (and expanding existing) settlements, uprooting olive trees, and depriving ordinary people of living normal lives. By its own actions, Israel is planting the seeds of discontent and extremism among the Palestinians and then blames them for their militant and violent behavior. 
Neither side can or will change their attitudes toward the other overnight, not only because of the lack of trust and open hostility that have been ingrained in their psyche, but because they have their own agendas that preclude the right of each other to exist in their present form. For these reasons, it is not enough to establish a new cease-fire to end the cycle of violence. This limited objective will only, as in the past, be violated time and time again. Both Israel and Hamas have legitimate claims and each must meet the others basic requirements in order to chart a new course that can be sustained in the long run.
Israel is correct in demanding that a more permanent security arrangement be established that will prohibit the firing of rockets in the future by Hamas or any of its surrogates. Israel is also seeking some assurance that Hamas will be prevented from acquiring more sophisticated rockets. In return, Israel must agree to lift the blockade, albeit in stages, conditional upon complete cessation of hostilities and allowing international monitors to join Israeli inspectors to inspect all cargo going in or out of Gaza. The international monitors will also be charged with ensuring that steel and cement are used strictly for building homes, hospitals, government institutions and infrastructure, not bunkers or tunnels.
Only a full adherence to a cease-fire and the expansion of trade (which is ongoing even as the fighting continues) between the two sides will allow, however gratingly, for the gradual building of trust which is sorely absent. This will also permit the creation of an environment conducive to peaceful co-existence, as the United States is currently pushing for, while building the foundation for bilateral relations and leaving the prospect of a peace agreement as a possibility sometime in the future.
None of this can happen without the direct and indirect support of Egypt, who can exercise tremendous influence on Hamas, and the United States who likewise can persuade Israel to accept a deal based on mutuality of interest. Both Egypt and the US have major stakes in ending the conflict. Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, notwithstanding his public condemnation of Israel, does not seek to entangle his country in the Israeli-Hamas conflict, one that can spin out of control and place Egypt in a terrible bind. Egypt has a profound national interest in maintaining the peace treaty with Israel and is in dire need of financial and political support from the US. If Morsi wants to survive as president he must first and foremost focus on the Egyptian economy. Paying lip service to Hamas is the minimum he must do to calm his own public, but he remains the central figure that can effect a real change in Hamas’ behavior toward Israel. In the main, President Morsi must, at one point or another, pressure Hamas to permanently forsake violence as the tool of choice to achieve its “political objective,” which must be based on a two-state solution. 
The United States, on the other hand, is the only country that can exert the kind of influence necessary to modify the policy of any Israeli government to look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a different perspective and work in earnest toward a permanent solution. The US can exercise tremendous leverage on Israel as it is the only country that supports Israel financially, economically, politically, and militarily. Israel trusts the United States to be present to ensure its national security. The Obama administration must now  assume a direct and active role and remain relentless in supporting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s successful mission at this time of crisis must not end with the establishment of the cease-fire but with the beginning of a renewed and sustained American effort to bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however long and difficult it may be.
Hamas might feel emboldened by the wide range of political support it has received from the Arab states, Turkey, Iran and other countries, but it also knows that rhetoric is not equal to realpolitik. No Arab or Muslim state will venture to confront Israel militarily only to save Hamas. In the final analysis, Hamas will be left to wallow in its own mess while the Palestinians in Gaza will continue to suffer from their leaders’ misadventures. Israel must also come to terms with the reality on the ground. Hamas cannot be wished away. Even if Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas’ infrastructure in the future and decapitating its leadership, Hamas will rise again.
The current bloody and destructive conflict can serve well both Israel and the Palestinians, including Hamas, only if they let reason and reality dictate their future course of action.