The June 25, 2006 early morning raid by Palestinian militants on an Israeli Defense Force (IDF) outpost (Terrorist Incident forthcoming) could have lasting and tragic implications for the immediate region, re-igniting sustained Israeli-Palestinian warfare and imbedding internal political disorder within the Palestinian Territories. The perpetrators sought to demonstrate their advanced militant capability and draw attention to Israel’s recent flurry of air strikes that have targeted militant leaders and inadvertently killed multiple Palestinian civilians, including 14 victims over the last several weeks. The attack was also a Palestinian political power-play by the militant and hard-line community that is opposed to President Mahmoud Abbas’ (see photo in previous column) program for peace and any softening of Hamas’ current intransigent stance toward Israel. The impact of the militants’ raid has also clouded the course of future Israeli policy vis-?-vis the Palestinians.
The raid on the IDF outpost occurred on Israeli territory just over the Gaza border. The attack was a joint operation by members of the Izzedine al Qassam Brigades (Hamas’ militant wing), Popular Resistance Committee , and the heretofore unknown Army of Islam. The eight perpetrators traversed a 990-foot tunnel originated in southern Gaza and attacked the IDF outpost with grenades, rifles, and anti-tank missiles, killing two IDF soldiers, wounding three, and kidnapping Cpl. Gilad Shalit . The raid, in which two of the Palestinian militants were killed while attempting to scale the border wall back into Gaza, was a sophisticated and well-planned operation, similar in style and execution to previous Hizballah incursions into northern Israel. Indeed, Hizballah’s operational signature is not surprising given their heightened assistance for Palestinian terrorists, providing aid and training at Iran’s direction .
In addition to demonstrating operational effectiveness within Israel’s borders and in seeking vengeance for IDF attacks on militant commanders, the perpetrators sought to highlight?through their specific selection of a military target?the deaths of Palestinian civilians caused by Israeli air strikes. As the disseminated pamphlet that claimed responsibility for the attack stated: “This operation was a clear and final message to the enemy leaders: They need to keep civilians far away from their hateful bullets and leave the battle between the heroes of the resistance and the [Israeli] soldiers.” The pamphlet also requested that Israel release all Palestinian women and children under the age of 18 from Israeli prisons in exchange for information on Cpl. Shalit, juxtaposing Israel’s imprisonment of women and children alongside their targeting of military soldiers. The ploy conveniently excuses the barrage of daily rockets fired by Palestinian terrorist groups at Israeli towns (Terror Web Watch) or that the operatives in this attack also fired on the Kerem Shalom kibbutz during their raid.
Furthermore, the attack is intended to undermine Abbas, who has embraced a peace program that implicitly recognizes Israel’s right to exist and has scheduled a referendum on the plan that he hopes will demonstrate the Palestinian population’s desire for peace . Additionally, though Hamas has rejected the Abbas program and the notion of holding a referendum, it was reported in several news outlets that Hamas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh had agreed to limit resistance operations to ‘occupied territory’. The decision to launch the raid and to target an IDF post within Israel’s pre-1967 borders sends two clear signals: (1) the Palestinian hard-line militant community maintains autonomy of action, and (2) it will fight Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace settlement with Israel and any accommodation of the Abbas program by the Hamas leadership in Gaza.
For Israel, the attack reiterates multiple political realities that will shape its future policy toward the Palestinian Territories. First, it confirms the absence of a viable peace partner. The Palestinian Authority has failed to curtail the daily rocket attacks emanating from Gaza; indeed, the governing Hamas leadership has characterized them as rightful acts of the resistance. Moreover, the militant wing of Hamas participated in the cross border raid, which was subsequently praised by several Hamas officials (though not by the Prime Minister). While Abbas appears to be the desired peace partner from an ideological perspective, he clearly does not possess the monopoly of power that can translate rhetoric into political action. Second, the raid in conjunction with the daily rocket attacks has reduced the appeal of unilateral disengagements for the Israeli populace. Israelis recognize the legitimacy of the demographic issue driving disengagement , but the inability to provide security following withdrawal is a more pressing concern (source). If these attacks are launched from Gaza, why would Israelis evacuate the West Bank that provides more proximate access to major Israeli population centers? Lacking a peace partner and enduring unacceptable consequences of unilateral disengagement, the Israeli government is left to consider the undesirable option of a ground invasion and reoccupation of Gaza, an action which will only radicalize the Palestinian population and produce support for the very terrorists that Israel is attempting to combat.
This attack has added intense pressure to the sensitive fault lines underlying the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and the inter-Palestinian factional rivalries, including a speculated gap that exists between the more pragmatic Hamas leadership in Gaza and the radical political leadership based in Damascus. It is now pivotal that the diplomatic efforts, led by Egypt and France , facilitate the safe return of Cpl. Shalit. His death would exacerbate Israel’s reaction to the attack, likely resulting in a massive military response, and all the troubling consequences that such an action would produce.