Despite ongoing rocket fire, Israel was right to leave Gaza
Op-ed: Southern residents' disappointment is understandable, but it's too early to point an accusing finger at Netanyahu, Ya'alon and Gantz.
The ongoing fire was particularly difficult for the residents of the kibbutzim and moshavim in the Gaza vicinity, who had hoped for calm and got rockets instead. Those who don't live there may be able to call it a drizzle, but for them it's intolerable anxiety, on a daily and hourly basis.
There is definitely room for disappointment in this case, but it's too early to point an accusing finger at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon and IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz – the three men running this conflict.
They did the right thing when they decided to take the ground forces out of Gaza: The moment the ground forces finished dealing with the offensive tunnels, they had no additional tasks, and their continued presence on the ground would have been problematic – it would have involved additional military losses and civilian casualties in order to protect the soldiers' lives.
The unilateral ceasefire announcement was also right. It improved Israel's situation in the international arena and placed the responsibility for the ongoing destruction in Gaza exclusively on Hamas' shoulders.
When the rocket fire from Gaza resumed, the Israel Air Force strikes resumed too. Thirty rockets were launched from Gaza on Saturday, without causing damage. The IAF attacked some 100 targets and killed 10 terrorists. The price of the continued fighting was paid mainly by Gaza's residents.
The Israeli decision to give the negotiations in Cairo a chance was reasonable. It was based on the assumption that the combination of international pressure, Egyptian brutality and humanitarian distress in Gaza would force Hamas to accept the little it is being offered now and stop firing.
All the disappointed people – from government ministers to those commenting on social media – should ask themselves what were the alternatives. Netanyahu has suspected since the start of the operation that the members of Hamas' military wing are trying to pull him into the heart of Gaza. It's not hard to understand why he isn't rushing to do what they want.
But the relative restraint demonstrated by Israel towards the Gaza rocket fire cannot continue forever. If it goes on, the Israeli leadership will have to decide to call up reserve forces again and to redeploy the forces in the Gaza vicinity. The tanks which have been taken northward will return to the south. We may move towards a renewed ground operation, this time at a greater extend and in more crowded areas.
Israeli officials have realized that the Palestinians must be given an incentive to convince them to maintain the ceasefire. The question is how much, and mainly to whom. Hamas wants an immediate achievement in order to present itself as a winner in the eyes of the Palestinian street. The Fatah members of the delegation want to regain control of Gaza. The Israelis are failing to deliver the goods, neither to Hamas nor to Fatah.
The result is a deadlock: Israel is not interested in occupying Gaza, not interested in compensating Hamas, and not interested in bolstering Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. It wants calm. Under the circumstances that have been created, that's not enough.
Netanyahu could have dared more. If he delves into the compliments given to him by US President Barack Obama in his New York Times interview, he will understand that what the president really said was that Netanyahu is missing the opportunity of his life: He is shortsighted and a coward. Only internal pressure will force him to work in favor of his state's real interest.
Obama may be overestimating Netanyahu's political power, and deluding himself about the chance of reaching a peace agreement. But he is right in his warnings over Israel's democratic and Jewish future and his regret over the lack of vision. Obama is disappointed too.
Netanyahu could have advanced Justice Minister Tzipi Livni's initiative and reached an international agreement on a framework securing the Gaza Strip's future. He could have announced that Israel was prepared to lift the naval, aerial and land blockade of Gaza, if and when a Palestinian government opposing and fighting terror is established there, in coordination with international organizations, Israel and the US.
He could have given the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority a renewed boost.
The rocket barrages from Gaza, with all the bitter disappointment they evoke, would have been more bearable had they been accompanied by a vision for the future. Netanyahu proved in this battle that he is capable of taking blows. That's a necessary condition for a leader, but it's not a sufficient condition.
