Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy has written an important piece in the latest TNR called “Time for Plan B for Gaza.” The takeaway is that every player involved in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is facing a bleak future and there is no way that things can continue on their current course. Ever since Sharon’s unilateral disengagement policy failed, Israel has been flailing, searching thus far in vain for a workable policy, wrong or right, to move forward with. Halevy’s views are worth reading because they likely come close to those of the Israeli security establishment which will have much influence on where Israel chooses to go from here.
Therefore, in the likely event that the joint Israeli-American plan worked out in Egypt to support Abbas and isolate Hamas fails, it will be necessary to move to Plan B. This plan is predicated first and foremost on accepting realities on the ground and turning them to the best possible advantage. Hamas has demonstrated that when in distress, it is pliable to practical arrangements on the ground.
Therefore, parallel to maintaining pressure on Hamas on a daily basis, isolating it regionally and internationally, contacts should be established with Hamas to see if a long-term armistice with it can be obtained. It must be a tough eyeball-to-eyeball exercise in which Hamas is brought to a point where its self-interest dictates such an understanding. An armistice will entail provisions for maintaining security, ending arms smuggling into the Strip, et cetera. Until this is achieved, constant military pressure must be maintained.
In scope, this could resemble the original armistice agreements negotiated and agreed to by Israel and the Arab states after the War of Independence in 1948-1949. At that time, too, the Arab states refused to recognize Israel–just as does Hamas today–but they nevertheless signed binding agreements with it. Armistice would not be a political determination of the conflict but a down-to-earth method of reducing tensions–a goal most essential, inter alia to American interests in the Middle East at large.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Anonymous // Jul 6, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Seems to me that such an approach - and you’re right, seems to represent the thinking I would expect from the Israeli security establishment - will simply ensure Hamas’ mindset and strategies are maintained. They’ve never trusted Israel or Israeli promises, they’ll cut short-term armistice deals but there’s no way that will include ending arms’ smuggling, and any short-term armistice will be aimed at prepping for the next round of the fight. Which will keep Israel in the same mode as well. So the question will remain, who can outlast the other in a long-haul war of attrition? The Palestinians aren’t going anywhere and can weather the suffering, the Israelis (even if most of them don’t admit it now) have a home they can pull back to if they truly end the occupation. So this really comes down to the mental question of when the Israelis will recognize that despite a restructuring of the occupation, they remain occupiers and that occupation is not feasible long-term.
2 Audree Wilson // Jul 20, 2007 at 6:25 am
Knutepunkt…
Stewart Township, Pennsylvania Indian Cricket (annual) Libertà condizionata Tim Bardsley Glaucous-leaf oak KASH-FM List of United States Representatives from South Carolina Mite (coin) Holy City of High Charity Audree Wilson …
Leave a Comment