Even if one ignores the political stench that befouled the latest Gaza war, it’s hard to view it as a victory. Israel would be wise to seek alternatives to its entire Gaza strategy.
All this brings accusations of war crimes against Israel, inflames real antisemitism around the world, and is driving Israelis who live in the firing range around Gaza out of their minds. Down the road lies a binational state, since while Gaza plays out, the West Bank, with its millions of Palestinians, becomes inseparable from Israel.
This is not just messy on the Gaza front. It is a strategic failure on the order of national suicide. Empires have collapsed over less. The Lebanese Maronites lost their hope for a country because of mistakes very similar.
Most Israelis seem content to ignore the big picture these days, but on the Gaza issue many have proposals for less-bad scenarios.
Few involve retaking the Strip, because it is a small piece of land with a large amount of hostile people. The popular recommendation – reportedly urged by senior military commanders – is to double down with a zero-tolerance policy toward the low-level rocket fire which hitherto had not been permitted to spark a full war.
There are at least two others, though.
One is a so-called hudna with Hamas – meaning, a face-saving long-term ceasefire in which the group is allowed to rule Gaza unmolested but ceases attacking Israel for a number of decades, until a new generation comes, with new ideas and new concerns. Hamas would not need to formally recognize the despised Zionist entity, the rockets will probably stop, and the people of Gaza will be sold down the river, saddled with a ruthless Islamist dictatorship. There are persistent reports that Hamas is ready for this, and from the perspective of both sides it would be a Faustian bargain extraordinaire.
THERE IS another avenue which I would like to offer if only as a thought exercise: a genuinely generous public offer, over the heads of Hamas, to start anew.
Imagine the Israeli prime minister holding a global news conference at the Erez crossing and saying something like this:
“I am here to admit that our policy of negativity has not worked, and to offer positivity instead. I want to outline a vision for a decent life for the people of Gaza. In my vision Gaza has a seaport and an airport, has reasonably open access to Israel’s labor market and certainly to the West Bank, and Gazans no longer have reason to fear bombardment from Israel.
“Furthermore,” our imaginary prime minister adds, “Israel will pay considerable compensation for destruction and suffering we have caused to individuals, and fund much of the reconstruction in Gaza. We will require no reciprocity and not interfere with capital inflows from the world aimed at development. We will be taking suggestions for any further steps we might take to restore good karma to our troubled neighborhood.
“We want to start over, but we cannot deal with rockets and infiltrations. Our condition is that Hamas lay down its arms and restore the Gaza Strip to the control of the Palestinian Authority. After 15 years, it’s time.
“People of Gaza: your suffering can not only end but be replaced by prosperity and calm. Demand this of the militia that has hijacked your territory. Ask it to restore your legitimate government – the one that still pays your officials.
“To show good faith,” the prime minister concludes, “I’m placing $5 billion into escrow toward your reconstruction on these conditions. It’ll sit there for as long as necessary.”
THERE ARE two problems with the generosity scenario.
One is that there are few ways of appearing more naive than to expect Middle Eastern rulers to step down voluntarily, no matter the circumstances. Netanyahu’s supervillain-like tenacity in clinging to power while on trial for bribery, while exploiting every loophole, shows this has extended to Israel; it’s certainly the case in the Arab world.
Indeed, Hamas will not go easy. The best we could probably hope for in the short term is for infighting to erupt between its relative moderates and hard-liners. Meanwhile, an international coalition would arise to back the offer and amplify it, probably including most of the Arab world. Pressure on Hamas would grow, including in Gaza; the people there cannot overthrow Hamas under current circumstances, but history shows that eventually you reach a limit.
Regardless of any other action or outcome, Israel’s international standing will receive a much-needed boost. It will cease looking like a bully who was indeed provoked by fanatics but is also unfeeling and unintelligent.
The pressure on Hamas would increase if this were coupled with a genuine willingness to resume peace negotiations with the PA on a two-state solution – and on moves to enable fair elections to be held by the PA, including in east Jerusalem (where Israel has not genuinely offered residents citizenship).
If there is anything that would stun my boisterous former colleagues in the international press into silence, it is this level of cleverness from Israel.
But then there is the second problem with the generosity scenario: it is inconceivable under the current Israeli leadership.
Nothing resembling generosity will come from the current prime minister, who stands accused by critics in Israel of stirring up trouble in Jerusalem and escalating in Gaza on May 10 in order to scuttle then-imminent political moves to replace him.
Far-seeing statesmanship requires a change of government in Israel. We shall see if the fractured and sometimes gullible opposition can keep its eye on the ball. This is about more than just corruption; the Palestinian issue has not gone away.