When the incoming presidential administration of Barack Obama considered what foreign policy challenges they might face in the first few weeks of office, it is fair to say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not at the top of the list. With international analysts warning of how close Iran is to having the capability to build a nuclear weapon and with the latest military moves by Pakistan along the Indian border, Obama’s transition team envisioned conflicts, but not one that has the potential to ruin much of the international goodwill Obama brings with him into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The latest attacks by the Israeli air force, and the massing of ground forces on the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip, a piece of territory Israel unilaterally and controversially disengaged from in 2005, have thus far led to 318 people being killed (although those numbers are guaranteed to change by the time you have read this brief). The UN Palestinian refugee agency has reported that 57 of the deaths thus far are civilians, prompting cries from the Middle East and at the United Nations for Israel to cease its military actions and allow for a ceasefire to be negotiated with themselves and Hamas, the militant organization and part of the Palestinian government that has control of Gaza.
This brief will give background and summarize the current conflict and provide some implications it has for the Obama administration and Israeli politics.
Israeli-Palestinian Historical Background
Summarizing the history between the Israelis and Palestinians is a tricky affair and due to the length of this brief, they will not be summarized here. However, any credible extemper will spend time gathering information on the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the three successive wars Israel has had to fight to secure its position in the Middle East (1948, 1967, and 1973). Over the course of these wars, Israel extended its territory beyond its pre-1967 borders to include buffer zones on the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. Israeli military planners believed that an Israeli presence in these zones would be a deterrent to future actions on behalf of Arab countries in the region. However, seizing these territories (and I should not that the Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt in 1982 as part of the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty of 1979 that was negotiated by U.S. President Jimmy Carter) has only provoked further conflict, especially among a Palestinian population that is demanding a state from Israel and the world at large.
Since 1983, Israel has experienced two intifadas, or mass periods of protest by Palestinians in the “occupied territories” of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The first intifada occurred from 1987-1993 and saw the Palestinian cause being brought to wide international attention for the first time. The second intifada started in September 2000 and was though to end in November 2006. However, the current political split in the Palestinian governing authority between Fatah and Hamas has led to doubts about whether any truce the Palestinians make with the Israelis can ever hold. The second intifada was bloodier than the first and witnessed the use of suicide bombers against Israeli targets.
Gaza Background
The current troubles experienced in the West Bank arise from a decision by the Bush administration to push for a democratic agenda in the Arab world. Although doubts about the democratization agenda for the Middle East were voiced prior to 2006, with the argument being that the forces that won elections in the Arab world would be less friendly to the West than current regimes that existed somewhat undemocratically, the U.S. decided to push for free elections in the Palestinian territories for the first time since 1996. In these elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the militant organization of Hamas won 76 of the 132 seats, while Fatah won 43 seats.
Before reading too much into these election results, there must be some background given for Hamas. Hamas is an organization created as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic organization that has constantly challenged Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt for power. Hamas was founded in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, and Mohammad Taha. The founding charter for Hamas calls for the destruction of the Israeli state, says that the only way to achieve a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is through jihad, and calls for the creation of an Islamic state in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and in the territory currently held by Israel. This founding charter has provoked problems among Palestinians because evidence suggests a majority would favor a secular, non-religious, government. This secular principle is what Fatah, the biggest political party that rivals Hamas, stands for. However, the corruption and inefficiency of Fatah under Yasser Arafat’s leadership in the Palestinian National Authority, set up by the infamous Oslo peace accords between the Israelis and Palestinians in 1993, alienated many Palestinians. These Palestinians have also been more willing to listen to Hamas due to the organizations willingness to retaliate against Israel with rocket attacks or suicide bombings and distribute medical and education services. Experienced extempers could liken the stance of Hamas to Hizbullah in Lebanon, an organization that is also good at distributing these services. This “state within a state mentality” preys upon weak central governments, and allows militant outfits to gain support, which only becomes more powerful after they are introduced into the political scene. Currently, the United States, the European Union (EU), Canada, Israel, and Japan consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization and Jordan has banned it from operating inside of its borders (primarily due to the Jordanian governments willingness to have peace with Israel). The United States State Department alleges that Hamas’ funding primarily comes from Saudi Arabia and Iran, with other funding coming from exiled Palestinians around the world who sympathize with the groups cause. Hamas claims that its struggle against the Israeli state is purely political in nature and is not motivated by religious or ethnic hatred.
Keeping this background in mind, we must return to the January 2006 election result. This election was the first time that Hamas had contested national elections, after boycotted the Palestinian presidential elections in January 2005 that were won by Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah. After the January elections, Hamas refused to adhere to demands made by the United States and the EU, primarily that it renounce violence, recognize the right of Israel to exist, and agree to the past agreements made under Arafat between the Israelis and Palestinians. For refusing to meet these demands, the United States, the EU, and Canada froze all funding to the Palestinian Authority, severely weakening the ability of the government to meet the needs of the people. However, instead of forcing Hamas to change course, it only hardened the stance of the organization and caused many Palestinians to believe that they were being unfairly punished for making a democratic choice at the polls.
From January 2006 to June 2007, tensions in the Palestinian Authority between Hamas and Fatah factions reached a fever pitch and in June 2007 there was the “Battle for Gaza” where Hamas and Fatah factions dueled in the territory. When the smoke cleared, Hamas won and Fatah retreated to the West Bank, solidifying a major split in the Palestinian movement. Hamas claims to have fought Fatah and taken Gaza by force because of reports that President George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice had approved a plan for Fatah militants to overthrow the Hamas-dominated PLC. The U.S. government denies involvement in such activity to this day.
President Abbas used the actions of Hamas to ban the militant parts of the organization, an action many refuse to recognize. Following the Hamas takeover, Israel tightened its grip further on the Gaza Strip. It is key that extempers recognize that while Israel unilaterally withdrew and pulled its settlers out of Gaza in 2005, that it still controls the border between the territory and Israel and also controls the land, air, and sea routes into the territory. When Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it said that people in Gaza would no longer be able to come into Israel to work, which has left many unemployed and restless. Israel has also made it difficult to get supplies, other than humanitarian relief, into Gaza and that has caused an estimated 95% of businesses operating in Gaza prior to the 2005 withdrawal to shut down, creating more economic misery in the territory for the 1.5 million people who live there.
The Current Gaza Crisis
Historically, Israel and Hamas have recognized that their fighting against each other has caused misery, death, and economic problems for both sides. As a result, both sides have attempted to reach ceasefires, but they have been difficult to hold. Hamas has alleged that Israel will not let up on its economic blockade of Gaza and Israeli hawks argue that Hamas only uses the ceasefires in order to rearm for its next fight against the Israeli state. Nevertheless, a ceasefire was agreed to in Egypt on June 18, 2008, even though Israel refused to say whether or not a ceasefire had been negotiated.
Last week, on December 23, 2008, angered by Israel’s refusal to let up on the economic blockade of the Gaza Strip, Hamas declared that the ceasefire was over. The Israeli government signaled little willingness to re-engage Hamas in ceasefire negotiations, declaring before the current military strikes that Hamas had violated the terms of the ceasefire by launching as many as 200 Qassam rockets a day into Israel during the last six weeks the ceasefire was supposed to have been in effect.
It is worth noting what a Qassam rocket is for extempers before moving on. Qassam rockets are a crude design, and named for the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Bridages, the name for the militant wing of Hamas. The rockets are very economical, encased in steel, fueled by potassium nitrate and sugar (found in fertilizers in the area), and filled with explosive material such as TNT. Many of the material used to make the rockets mostly smuggled in over land routes, or increasingly in underground tunnels, that connect Egypt to Gaza. The first Qassam used to hit Israeli territory was in March 2002, and although the rockets are not very accurate, mostly because they are crude artillery fire and have no guidance system, they can cause Israelis problems if they hit critical infrastructure or happen to hit a residential zone.
Israel started its current actions in Gaza on December 27th and has said that it plans to continue its attacks until it stops Hamas from being able to launch Qassam rockets into Israel. Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak has said that this is a war to “the bitter end” with Hamas militants. If there is something that can be inferred from the current Israeli actions, it is that they are also targeting Hamas leaders, its smuggling routes, and operational headquarters. In fact, the current strikes have seen the leveling of the Interior Ministry building in the Gaza Strip. Israel has also started to man troops and tanks on the border with Gaza, although military analysts are ruling out a reoccupation of Gaza since that would require 10,000 troops and Israel has less than that on the border now. The actions taken by the Israelis are the most aggressive actions seen in Gaza since the 1967 war.
For its part, Hamas has been calling its reserves to the frontlines in anticipation of an Israeli ground assault and has been sending streams of Qassam rockets and other artillery fire into Israeli territory. Current rocket ranges vary, but Israeli planners say that at they can hit at least thirty miles over the Gaza-Israel border. The rocket fire thus far has killed over five Israelis and wounded dozens of others.
The current operation somewhat resembles what the Israelis attempted to do in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. In an attempt to root out Hizbullah, the Israelis moved into southern Lebanon, accompanied by air power. However, instead of uprooting the organization, or crippling its ability to launch rockets into Israel, the country got bogged down and by all estimates was defeated, raising the status of Hizbullah among the Lebanese people. In this situation, as in that one, the Arab world and the United Nations have called for Israel to cease its activities and the United States has instead told Israel to not target civilians, but not to stop its actions. Therefore, there is a major risk for Israel in setting the standards for this operation too high.
Implications
There are several major implications for the current Israeli advance into Gaza. First, it has the potential to destabilize the position of president-elect Barack Obama’s position on the Middle East peace process. The Arab world warmly received the election of Obama, but during the election Obama also had to make inroads with Jewish voters in key states like Florida. Obama has kept silent on the current crisis, but in a few weeks he will no longer be able to be silent. Where he takes a stand will map out where he intends to take the Middle East peace process. This will also test his foreign policy team, Hillary Clinton, the presumed next Secretary of State, in particular. A mishandling of this crisis, if it runs into his administration, would be a bad first step for the Obama administration and could also give a signal to other hostile regimes in North Korea and Iran that they can run circles around the new administration. Therefore, one month of problems could produce four years of foreign policy headaches for Obama.
There are also many political implications for Israel, considering that its new round of parliamentary elections are scheduled for February since Tzipi Livni, the new head of the Kadima party, was not able to muster a coalition government after she was named leader last fall. How Israel’s troops perform on the battlefield will have major implications for Livni and Barak, who is the leader of the Labor Party. Although Shimon Peres, the current prime minister, is overseeing the war effort with Barak, Kadima will still likely be blamed for any shortcomings since it is the party that had to make the ultimate call to use force in Gaza. However, if the results prove promising then Kadima could be heading to a victory at the polls. Most military experts argue that what Israel is doing with its current actions in Gaza is to gain the upper hand over Hamas to where they can negotiate a new ceasefire on their terms. If Israel manages to do this, one can imagine that it will sweep either Kadima or Labor to power, albeit still without enough seats to create a government on their own (a problem that has plagued Israel government throughout its history).
The one man who stands to benefit from the current struggle is Benjamin Netanyahu, the current leader of the Likud Party. Netanyahu has usually favored a strong line with the Palestinians, but since his involvement with the war effort is minimal, he has the ability to argue that if its successful it is a vindication of his proposals whereas if it fails he can argue that he would have administered the war effort better. The U.S. press is already assuming that Netanyahu will be the next prime minister, and the negative implications it could have on the peace process due to Netanyahu’s unwillingness to confront settlers in the West Bank, whose withdrawal might be vital to securing a more solidified peace with the Palestinians. Monitoring what Netanyahu does over the course of the current struggle is a worthwhile point for extempers to consider as this crisis in Gaza continues.