ShareThis Page

Analysis: Mideast crisis a strategic stalemate

| Sunday, July 13, 2014, 9:39 p.m.

If the Israel-Hamas fighting feels like a rerun, that's because it is.

This is the third round of Hamas rockets and Israeli airstrikes since the Islamic militant group seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007. Issues each time seem much the same: How can Hamas be compelled to stop firing rockets? Does Israel really have the will to reconquer a Hamas-ruled Gaza and oust the militants? Can the world tolerate Israel reacting with far deadlier force than the rockets themselves, as evidenced in the hugely lopsided casualty count that each time appears anew?

This round of violence occurred after peace talks collapsed, Israel tried to scuttle a Palestinian unity government and violence ratcheted up. With the Gazans now suffering more, one might expect internal pressure on Hamas to end the rocket fire, which would likely bring the airstrikes to a stop. But in a region where honor is key, and with the two sides not talking, outside mediation is badly needed for a mutually face-saving cease-fire.

In a strategic stalemate in which neither side seems able to accept or defeat the other, here are some key issues at play:

It's all about the rockets

The Israeli point of view is that Hamas has grown accustomed to firing rockets, and no country would tolerate such attacks. Doing nothing is not an option, and pounding Hamas hard enough seems to eventually win some quiet.

It views civilian deaths in airstrikes as regrettable but blames Hamas for placing launchers and weapons at civilian sites.

Israel' makes efforts to minimize “collateral damage,” such as warning calls to residents and preceding big attacks on buildings with smaller bombs, a practice dubbed “roof-knocking.” Beyond that, Israelis see Hamas as a ruthless mortal enemy that cannot be accommodated and, because of its radical Islamic tenets, can barely be reasoned with.

Palestinians cast a wider net. For them, the very situation in Gaza is unacceptable: Since the Hamas takeover, Israel has blockaded it by land from the north and the east, and by sea from the west, preventing air travel as well. Egypt completes the siege by keeping a tight leash on its border with Gaza to the south.

The strip's 1.7 million people are crammed into low-rise shanty towns in a territory no more than 20 miles long and just a few miles wide. And even though Israel pulled out all soldiers and settlers in 2005, claiming this ended its occupation, Gazans depend on the Jewish state for electricity, water, communication networks and even currency.

For many Palestinians, even those who do not support Hamas, unconventional means such as rocket fire against their perceived tormentors are acceptable. At least, some reason, the world will take notice. Years of peace talks failed to yield an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza, and with the collapse two months ago of the latest round led by Secretary of State John Kerry, some fear the occupation of the West Bank may be permanent. Coupled with the dire situation in Gaza, the other part of the would-be Palestinian state, it is a situation that breeds despondency and despair.

Rare consenus

Israel is a society so divided that normally it's hard to describe the Israeli point of view — but not so when it comes to Hamas and its rockets. That's a rare opportunity for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Many Israelis dislike his policies toward the Palestinians in general, and some truly abhor the Jewish settlement of the West Bank that Netanyahu continues to promote. But the vast majority of Israelis distrust and despise Hamas — perpetrators of countless suicide bombings targeting civilians and plainly aimed, over the years, at derailing peace efforts by more moderate Palestinians. For Netanyahu, each round with Hamas offers him a genuine popularity that's otherwise elusive.

Few allies

Arab politicians will heap condemnation on Israel, but few genuinely shed tears for Hamas. The Palestinian group is the local chapter of a wider political Islam that is under siege in much of the region, firstly in Egypt but also in much of the gulf and beyond. Even onetime ally Iran has backed away, funding sources have dried up and the West largely views it as a terrorist group. The Palestinian Authority recently set up a joint government with Hamas, but its animosity with the secular Fatah group of President Mahmoud Abbas runs deep. Hamas has not accepted the conditions set by the world community to become a legitimate player: recognize Israel, abide by past agreements and renounce violence.

Downside of success

In the battle for global public opinion, Israel might be a victim of its own success in preventing domestic casualties. Its Iron Dome missile defense system has shot down incoming Hamas rockets, leaving many in Tel Aviv with the conflicting sensation of fear and the desire to post videos of the interceptions online. No Israelis have been killed in the past week, while more than 160 Gazans have died, many of them civilians.

Similar ratios were posted during the last round, in late 2012, and also during the largest mini-war, which began in late December 2008. That buys Netanyahu time with domestic opinion — but international pressure can soon be expected for Israel to find a way to stop.

And in the end, Hamas might get renewed relevance and even some of its prisoners released.

Many believe Hamas is therefore not entirely averse to provoking Israel into its attacks. Public opinion matters somewhat less in the strip, which is hardly a democracy, than in Israel. And it is hard to envision a scenario in which the populace rises up and topples the militants: Gaza is small enough to control, and the alternatives have essentially been stamped out.

Air vs. land

Israel could probably change the game quickly by invading Gaza and rooting out its Hamas rulers, and there was a small version of that on Sunday with a first land skirmish inside the strip. But a true invasion probably would be a bloody affair, and Israel has little stomach for great numbers of casualties. If it does go that route, a ground incursion likely would repeat the strategy of 2008-09, in which there was some ground fighting but the heart of Gaza City was not retaken and the Hamas leadership essentially left intact.

And from the perspective of the longer term, Israel has no desire to again occupy the strip, as it did from 1967 to 2005.

That leaves Israel with few attractive choices, which might explain why Hamas continues to fire the rockets: to poke Israel in the eye, and live to tell the tale.

Dan Perry leads The Associated Press's coverage of the Middle East.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.