On the Wall Street Journal editorial page this morning, Michael Oren, whose analysis of the Middle East is unfailingly superior, argues that the Israeli truce with Hamas is a dangerous delusion. Weakness, he argues, begets weakness.
The roots of this tragedy go back to the summer of 2005 and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The evacuation, intended to free Israel of Gaza’s political and strategic burden, was hailed as a victory by Palestinian terrorist groups, above all Hamas. Hamas proceeded to fire some 1,000 rocket and mortar shells into Israel. Six months later Hamas gunmen, taking advantage of an earlier cease-fire, infiltrated into Israel, killed two soldiers, and captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit. Hamas’s audacity spurred Hezbollah to mount a similar ambush against Israelis patrolling the Lebanese border, triggering a war in which Israel was once again humbled. Hamas now felt sufficiently emboldened to overthrow Gaza’s Fatah-led government, and to declare itself regnant in the Strip. Subsequently, Hamas launched thousands more rocket and mortar salvos against Israel, rendering parts of the country nearly uninhabitable.
The Israeli Defense Forces response was relatively restrained but nonetheless met with international condemnation. The terrorists were emboldened once more.
Tellingly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who once declared Hamas illegal, will soon travel to Gaza for reconciliation talks. Mr. Abbas’s move signifies the degree to which Hamas, with Israel’s help, now dominates Palestinian politics. It testifies, moreover, to another Iranian triumph. As the primary sponsor of Hamas, Iran is the cease-fire’s ultimate beneficiary. Having already surrounded Israel on three of its borders — Gaza, Lebanon, Syria — Iran is poised to penetrate the West Bank. By activating these fronts, Tehran can divert attention from its nuclear program and block any diplomatic effort. The advocates of peace between Israelis and Palestinians should recognize that fact when applauding quiet at any price. The cost of this truce may well be war.
What’s interesting about Oren’s analysis is just how much things have changed in a very short period of time. In late March, I spoke to a senior Bush administration deeply involved in Israeli-Palestinian issues. When I asked about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the near term, he said: I think it’s much more likely that we’ll see military action in Gaza.
