A steady entrenchment of Israeli and Palestinian political positions over the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, Corporal Galid Shalit, threatens to preclude a peaceful solution to the standoff. As a third party intermediary, Egyptian officials have tried but failed to reach a diplomatic solution between Israel and the Palestinian militants who are holding Shalit hostage. While political dynamics both within the Israeli and Palestinian communities and between their respective governments fuels increasingly hostile actions, neither side has yet crossed the precipice.
In response to the June 25, 2006 raid on an Israeli Defense Force outpost by members of three Palestinian militants groups?Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’s militant wing), Popular Resistance Committees, and the Army of Islam?that killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped Cpl. Shalit , the IDF has taken several steps to increase pressure on the Hamas government, which the IDF holds responsible for launching “an undeclared war of terror against Israel” (source). Air strikes have been launched at critical infrastructure sites?bridges and the central power plant?in Gaza and at symbolic sites?the Interior Ministry building and Prime Minister Haniyeh’s office (at night while vacated). Additionally, Israeli authorities have arrested over 60 Parliamentary members of Hamas and eight cabinet officials for supporting terrorist activities. Israeli jets also buzzed the summer estate of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who supports Palestinian terrorist groups and allows Hamas’ radical political leadership to operate out of Damascus.
Palestinian hardliners are in a struggle with their more moderate brethren over the future of the Palestinian state and its relationship with Israel. This ideological struggle is in part represented by the Hamas/Fatah factional rivalry, but also extends into intra-organizational divisions. Shalit’s captors have demanded the release of 1,500 Palestinian prisoners; a successful swap would bolster their standing within the Palestinian community and legitimize their view that militancy?not diplomacy?is the only effective way to deal with Israel. Alternatively, allowing President Mahmoud Abbas, the chief Palestinian proponent of the two-state solution, to facilitate Shalit’s release would be a significant boost for the moderate forces. Moreover, Abbas and Haniyeh recently reached an agreement over the ‘prisoners program’ to form a shared policy toward Israel, shifting the onus of action onto the hard-line community.
The Israeli leadership, committed to a policy of unilateral disengagement, must demonstrate strength and effectiveness in resolving the hostage situation if they are to win the confidence of the Israeli public. The unilateral Gaza disengagement has provided a staging ground for Palestinian militants to launch endless streams of rocket fire onto southern Israel and now a cross-border assault that has killed two Israeli soldiers and resulted in the kidnapping of Cpl. Shalit. A unilateral West Bank withdrawal could provide Palestinian militants with access to major Israeli population centers, and polls have demonstrated the Israeli populace has, at least momentarily, turned against it. Furthermore, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is still governing in the shadow of his predecessor, Ariel Sharon , a man whose hawkish credentials were unquestioned and whose judgment was trusted by Israelis during security crises . The current situation is a test of Olmert’s leadership, in which a successful outcome could provide enough political capital to carry out the policy of unilateral disengagements begun by Sharon.
Thus far, the Israeli government has refrained from launching a major ground assault into Gaza. And, while the deadline for acceding to the captors’ demands has passed, it is presumed that Cpl. Shalit has not been killed. With these redlines unbreached, the opportunity for a peaceful solution to the crisis continues to exist. However, with each passing day, the political pressures exerted on all key actors will increase, inversely diminishing the likelihood of such an outcome.
