Will they or won’t they? As questions about an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities capture world headlines, the Israeli Defense Force faces a more prosaic dilemma: What to do about Gaza?
Since August, Israel has experienced a “slow uptick” in rocket fire from Gaza, IDF spokeswoman Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich told me last week. On the last three days of October alone, 40 missiles landed in southern cities.
Israel has deployed new batteries of rocket-busting missiles in major southern cities, and sophisticated defense systems give frightened citizens 30 seconds to reach shelter. And the IDF disrupts some launches, using drones and artillery to pinpoint the shooters.
But sooner or later, a larger ground operation may be required to deter future shooters and disrupt the steady, Iranian-financed stream of weapons entering Gaza from Egypt through tunnels that are just as easy to rebuild as they are to destroy.
“If we don’t have a choice, we’ll know how to operate in Gaza,” the army’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, told Israel Radio on Sunday. A week earlier, he told the Knesset that the IDF may soon be “forced” to initiate a major Gaza ground operation.
But the rules of the game are very different than in 2009, the last time Israel entered Gaza.
For starters, that operation, Cast Lead, was followed by an unprecedented international attack on Israel’s self-defense. South African judge Richard Goldstone has since recanted allegations he made in a UN report that the IDF committed “possible war crimes.” Yet the IDF has still felt obliged to add an international lawyer to each unit, who must pre-approve all targets.
And it’s still a lose-lose battle. As now interpreted, the body of World War II-era conventions and treaties we call “international law” hopelessly favors terrorists who hide in dense civilian areas.
Israel must also consider new regional realities. For instance, will a Gaza operation distract world attention from Iran’s nuclear advances?
Also: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is to meet this week with Hamas political chief Khaled Mashal. The two factions are as far apart as they’ve ever been, but may still feel forced into an uneasy “unity” pact, which will surely complicate Israel’s calculations about attacking Gaza-controlling Hamas.
That is, if the two leaders meet. The planned powwow is supposed to take place in Cairo under the auspices of Egypt’s provisional military rulers. But by then the generals may succumb to the teeming Tahrir crowds.
And the Egyptian army lost control of the Sinai border with Israel months ago. Various Sinai-based groups affiliated with al Qaeda and Gaza-based organizations have launched deadly cross-border attacks. New Gaza fighting may quickly spread along the Egyptian border, also complicating Israel’s military planning.
There are other Arab Spring factors to consider: Libyan anti-aircraft missiles have found their way into Gaza. And Syria’s upheaval may force the Lebanese terror organization Hezbollah to join any skirmish in southern Israel — and if Bashar Assad falls, his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons may end up in the hands of Islamists who could use them against Israel.
Also, crucially, once Gaza fighting is renewed, a million diplomatic initiatives to end it will follow in short order — world media may ignore the renewed attacks on southern Israel, but never Israel’s reply to that aggression.
So Jerusalem officials are reluctant to pull the trigger. For now, southern Israelis are told to suffer silently. Israel’s cutting-edge (and budget-busting) missile-defense innovations may even suffice for now.
But Gantz’s warnings isn’t mere rhetoric. If one missile hits an Israeli school (there’ve been several near-misses recently); if the Gaza arsenal is supplemented by a new generation of missiles that can hit Tel Aviv — Israel will have no choice but to move in.
The least Washington can do for now is alert the world to the plight of Israelis who live under Gaza’s threat. A well-placed, non-“balanced” White House or State Department statement would at least assure that if and when serious hostilities break, no one will be surprised.