by Isi Leibler
The jury is still out and few
would envy Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s challenge in making the
tough decisions required in an extraordinarily complex situation. But
despite self-criticism that occasionally borders on masochism, most
Israelis appreciate the responsible leadership displayed by the prime
minister and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon in the current confrontation
with Hamas.
The government’s current overriding obligation is to respond to the incessant targeting of missiles on its citizens.
Yet despite outstanding
spokesmen ably presenting Israel’s clear-cut case of defending itself in
response to a genocidal aggressor, the global media’s focus on horrific
images of dismembered Palestinian children, often entirely out of
context, led to reason being subsumed by emotional anti-Israel
sentiment.
This morphed into feral
anti-Semitism of historic proportions, comparable to the Middle Ages,
when individual Jews were perceived as a source for all the natural
disasters of mankind. Even the blood libel has been revived in the
depiction of Israelis as child killers and war criminals. Leftists,
neo-Nazis and Moslems combined in demonstrations, generating violence
against Jews unprecedented since the 1930s.
However, in assessing the actual military and political confrontation with Hamas, Israel was more successful.
From the outset, Netanyahu had
the foresight to warn the nation that there would be no quick-fix
solutions. He and the defense minister (hardly considered a dove)
resisted calls for a full scale military conflict. Although the prime
minister may yet be obliged to move in this direction, he understood
that taking control of the entire strip and its subterranean tunnels
could be immensely costly in terms of Israeli casualties. Beyond that,
there was every likelihood that global intervention, possibly even
spearheaded by the United States, would oblige Israel to retreat
unconditionally, creating a triumph for Hamas.
Israel cannot claim a military
“victory” as long as Hamas remains in Gaza and if the rockets are not
soon silenced, Israel may yet be obliged to take further drastic
military ground action. Meanwhile the terrorist organization has taken a
tremendous battering. Tunnels were demolished, missile sites destroyed,
infrastructure severely damaged and key leaders assassinated. The
suffering endured by the people of Gaza must impact on their leaders,
especially as they may be impelled to hold some sort of election in the
not-too-distant future.
One of Israel’s greatest
obstacles has been the ambivalence and at times outright negative
attitude of our principal ally. At one stage, U.S. President Barack
Obama demanded that Israel open Gaza’s borders prior to
demilitarization, thus presenting Hamas with an outright victory. His
moral equivalence, support for the involvement of pro-Hamas Qatar and
Turkey in the mediation process, and -- even in the midst of a war --
his threats to limit arms shipments, were incompatible with repeated
assertions of “having Israel’s back”. This behavior encouraged Hamas to
believe that with western media support there would be increasing global
pressure on Israel to give in to its demands.
On the positive side, for the
first time, the bulk of Arabs states are snubbing and even condemning
Hamas. Egypt may play a crucial role in the future and could be the key
to the ultimate demilitarization of Gaza. It is apparent that
Netanyahu’s contentious willingness to engage in indirect negotiations
with Hamas was motivated by a desire to work in tandem with Egypt.
The most complex aspect of the
problem is the role of the corrupt Palestinian Authority. Israel has
learned from this Gaza experience that it can only agree to a
Palestinian state that is totally demilitarized and in which Israel
retains defensible borders. Otherwise, Tel Aviv could wake up with
terrorist tunnels emerging into Habima Theater.
It is utterly delusionary to
visualize that Mahmoud Abbas could provide us with security. In the
absence of the Israel Defense Forces, the PA could at any stage be taken
over by Hamas or other Islamic fanatics. It is also unrealistic to
expect Israel to embrace Abbas, who, despite being happy to see his
“partner” Hamas humiliated and defeated, continues his incitement
against Israel. He has now announced unless the UN Security Council
forces Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, the Palestinian
Authority will seek to charge Israel with war crimes at the
International Criminal Court.
However Netanyahu may yet seek
to negotiate a “collaboration” with the PA, subject to demilitarization
of Gaza and responsible supervision, enabling Israel to ease the
blockade. But there is probably a greater possibility of imposing tough
controls to prevent Hamas from replenishing its stockpile of rockets and
weapons, for which the cooperation of Egypt is crucial.
The belated global awareness of
the serious threat posed by ISIS in Iraq, Syria and other countries,
accelerated by shock at the barbaric murders and decapitations, has
enabled Netanyahu to demonstrate that ISIS and Hamas are both genocidal
birds of a feather. He has stated that “Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is
Hamas.” ISIS is not even half as strong as Hamas but “look what it can
do.” However, a U.S. State Department spokesman explicitly rejected
Netanyahu’s analogy, implying that jihadist terrorists threatening
Europe and the U.S. epitomize evil incarnate while those murdering Jews
are at worst to be defined as “militants.”
At the outset of the conflict,
the unity of the nation was reminiscent of that during the Six-Day War.
Today, despite a decline in support, the majority of Israelis still back
Netanyahu.
Alas, this never applied fully
to the political echelons although the opposition was tempered in its
approach, even suggesting that Netanyahu had responded “too softly” at
the onset with Hamas.
However members of the Security
Cabinet have behaved disgracefully. It is unprecedented and
unconscionable that in the midst of a war, ministers criticize the
policies of their own prime minister, sowing confusion among the public
and undermining him internationally. Some behaved as political
commentators rather than ministers. Others simply promoted policies that
they felt would provide them with additional votes.
The most outrageous was Avigdor
Lieberman, who ignored his responsibilities as foreign minister and
demagogically castigated his own government for not “finishing off
Hamas.” Setting aside the wisdom or otherwise of his remarks, no foreign
minister has ever behaved so irresponsibly in the midst of a war.
Economy and Trade Minister
Naftali Bennet, consistently called for an immediate halt to
negotiations and a full onslaught against Hamas -- a view that could
have been advocated within the cabinet (or in the opposition) but should
never be aired publicly by a minister during a war.
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni
condemned the government for not being aggressive enough with Hamas and
accused Netanyahu of using this as an excuse to avoid dealing with Abbas
and the PA. Even Finance Minister Yair Lapid could not restrain himself
from uttering derogatory remarks about Netanyahu’s relationship with
Obama.
Netanyahu ignored opinion polls
and displayed leadership, crafting a policy that he believed to be in
the national interest. While most Israelis today still endorse his
policies, if a protracted war of attrition drags on, his support may
dwindle and a constellation of political forces in the national camp may
seek to depose him.
But irrespective of Netanyahu’s
short-term political future, if he ultimately succeeds in providing
long-term security for Israelis, especially those in the south, he will
have earned his political legacy and would be recorded in history as one
of the great Israeli prime ministers.
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Isi Leibler’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.
Source: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=5203
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment