Dear friends and colleagues,
See bellow an
exceptionally clear and accurate analysis, in my opinion, of the main
reason for the present crisis which led to the Israeli “Operation Pillar
of Defense”: the attempt by Hamas to press the Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood government to “deliver the goods” it promised the
Palestinians rhetorically but denied them
practically.
There are other reasons, in my view, for the timing of this crisis:
-
Hamas’
evaluation that Israel will not launch a deep ground operation in Gaza,
as they learned from the experience of the 2009 Operation Cast Lead,
which also was launched by
Israel several weeks before the elections to Israel’s Knesset;
-
The reelection of President Obama, who, Hamas leaders presumed, will put pressure on Israel not to enter the Gaza Strip;
-
The
need to counter the internal and international influence of a political
victory by Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ bid to recognize the Palestinian
Authority as a non-member observer
of the United Nations.
Sorry for duplicates.
Ely Karmon, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scholar
International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and
The Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) at
The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC)
Herzlyia, Israel
Tel.: 972-9-9527277
Cell.: 972-52-2653306
Fax.: 972-9-9513073, 972-9-7716653
E-mail: ekarmon@idc.ac.il
Web: http://www.ict.org.il/
Volume 6, Number 22
November 26, 2012
Israel, Hamas and “the Egypt We Were Waiting For”[1][1]
Brandon Friedman
The
latest confrontation between Israel and Hamas, which ended with the
announcement of a ceasefire on the evening of November 21, had its roots
in Egypt. On August 5, sixteen
Egyptian soldiers were killed by militants crossing into Egypt from
Gaza. During the attack the militants seized two Egyptian Armored
Personnel Carriers and attempted to attack Israeli forces at the Kerem
Shalom crossing. Hamas, which is an ideological offshoot
of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, temporarily shut down access to the
tunnels connecting Gaza with Egypt. The tunnels had been used to bring
construction and military materials into Gaza. Since the August attacks,
Egypt has closed down much of the heavy traffic
through the tunnels by bulldozing its end of the throughways.[2][2]
This crackdown on the tunnels, when combined with the ongoing blockade
on Gaza, led to rising prices in Gaza and an economy that was grinding
to a halt.
Before
the August attack, the tunnels were fueling a rapidly growing economy
despite the Israeli blockade. If some estimates are to be believed,
Gaza’s economy leaped from
6 percent growth in 2008 to 27 percent growth in 2011.[3][3]
Those
are remarkable statistics for a community that was supposed to be under
siege. In a September 30 article published in the Hamas-backed
newspaper,
Filastin,
Dr. Yusuf Rizqah, an adviser to Hamas’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh,
wrote that “Gaza’s tunnels represented a genuine outlet for construction
and reconstruction materials. The tunnels have
become an artery of life for the Gaza Strip … without a normal trade
route, Gaza will never accept the closure of the tunnels. In so doing,
Gaza will be killing itself or better, committing suicide and sentencing
the people of Gaza to death.” The strong language
used by Rizqah underscored the importance of the tunnels not only to
Gaza’s economy but also to Hamas’s ability to rule Gaza. Writing in
The New York Review of Books, Nicolas Pelham noted that
there are a group of 600 “tunnel millionaires” in Gaza. It may be fair
to say that without the tunnels as steady source of independent revenue
from which to tax and distribute patronage,
Hamas’s power would erode.
During
the last three months, as a result of Egyptian policing, tunnel traffic
dwindled to a third of pre-August 5 levels, and if Israel had not eased
its restrictions on
goods into Gaza prior to the latest conflict, the damage to the economy
in Gaza would have been much worse. On September 30 and October 1,
there were large protests in Gaza at the Rafah border crossing in
response to the rising prices of construction materials
and fuel. The protests were directed at Egypt as much as at Israel.
And
therein was the paradox for Hamas: Hamas was born out of the Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood. It shares the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and
worldview, and it views its political
and economic future as closely aligned with the fortunes of Muhammad
Mursi’s Egypt. Hamas’s ambition had been to replace the tunnels between
Egypt and Gaza with a legitimate free-trade zone along the border. Not
only was there no progress on this front, but
Egypt was locking down the Gazan tunnels, damaging Hamas politically,
and Gaza economically.
In a delicately written article published in
Filastin on October 2, Rizqah outlined the heart of the problem: “Gaza is complaining
to Muhammad Mursi about its burdens and pains, but it is not complaining
about
him [emphasis added]. The difference between the two is as significant
as the difference between love and hatred.” Rizqah’s comments reflected
the political tightrope Hamas was trying to walk
with respect to Mursi and Egypt. On the one hand, Gaza was being
squeezed by Egypt in the wake of the August attack at Kerem Shalom, but
on the other hand, Hamas was reluctant to place the blame on Mursi and
Egypt.
Hamas was in a bind. Its authority in Gaza was being increasingly challenged by Gaza-based
salafi-jihadi groups affiliated with al-Qa‘ida (groups such as
Ansar Jerusalem, Tawhid and Jihad, and Ansar al Sunnah, and their
umbrella organization, Mujahideen Shura Council),[4][4]
who had been attacking both Israel and Egypt regularly in 2011 and
2012. In the wake of the August 2012 attack at the Kerem Shalom
crossing, Hamas was pressured by Egyptian officials to crack down on
these
salafi-jihadis. And that is when Hamas began playing its double-game. It attempted to satisfy Egypt, as well as placate its
salafi-jihadi rivals in Gaza by publicly announcing the arrest
and detention of suspects involved in the Sinai attacks while later
quietly releasing those same suspects.
Israeli
forces, which for some time had been coming under increasing attack
from Gaza, were not interested in the subtleties of Hamas’s
double-game. On the night of October
12, an Israeli drone killed Abu Walid al-Maqdisi, the 43 year-old
leader of Gaza-based Tawhid and Jihad—one of the groups that was
suspected in the August 5 attack on Egypt and Israel at the Kerem Shalom
Crossing. Maqdisi had been released by Hamas just two
days before the August attack. In response to his mid-October death,
Maqdisi’s group vowed to convert Gaza into an Islamic state, fire
rockets at Israel, and launch attacks inside Sinai, which put the
Egyptian military on alert.[5][5]
The
resulting confrontation between Israel and Gaza was, in part, a product
of Hamas’s poorly managed double-game, which backfired. Hamas was
attempting to satisfy its would-be
Egyptian patrons that it was cracking down on Gaza’s salafi-jihadis,
in the hope of broadening its legitimate trade relations with Mursi’s
government, but, at the same time, it was permitting the same
salafi-jihadis to have a free hand to act against Israel.
The
salafi-jihadis stepped up their attacks against Israel during the
last two weeks of October, which were not limited to just an increasing
volume of rockets against civilian population centers. They also
conducted increasingly bold ground operations against
Israeli forces at the border fence between Israel and Gaza. These
operations were designed to ambush and capture Israeli soldiers, in the
same fashion that Hamas had captured Gilad Shalit in 2006. Israel was
determined to push militants back from the border
fence on the Gaza side, which Hamas, for its part, resisted as a
violation of its sovereign authority.
This
spiral of escalation between Israel and Gaza-based militants culminated
in an anti-tank missile attack on an Israel Defense Force jeep on
November 10 that injured four
Israeli soldiers, two critically. There was also a noticeable
escalation in the volume of rocket fire into southern Israel, which in
all likelihood was sanctioned by Hamas. The escalation from Hamas
represented a miscalculation about Israel’s will to respond
as well as perhaps Hamas’s inability to exercise full control over the salafi-jihadi
groups operating within its territory. Whatever the case may be, Israel
could not ignore the escalation, and was forced to take action in order
to deter further attacks
and reassure its citizens that it was capable of protecting them. The
result was Israel’s liquidation of Hamas’s military commander, Ahmad
Ja‘abari, followed by eight days of continuous Israeli aerial attacks
against Hamas targets, including its Iranian-supplied
missiles capable of striking at targets in central Israel, and
intensive Hamas rocket attacks against Israel.
Whether
intentional or not, in sparking the fighting, Hamas placed Muhammad
Mursi’s government under enormous pressure to undermine Egypt’s peace
treaty with Israel. This
was a dangerous game that Mursi surely did not want to play. Hence,
the Egyptian president made a shrewd effort to capitalize on the events
without risking Egypt’s vital security interests.
In the midst of the fighting,
Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor-in-chief of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi,
triumphantly declared that “Here is the Egypt that we have been waiting
for,” praising Mursi for bringing dignity
at long last to the post-1967 Arab world. But apart from symbolic
support, Mursi was careful not to provide Hamas with any material aid or
to threaten Israel with active Egyptian involvement in the conflict.
It
seems that Mursi understood it was in the Muslim Brotherhood’s interest
to bring the fighting to a swift end. The longer the fighting
continued, the greater the domestic
political pressure Mursi and the Brotherhood would have faced to do
more than simply make fiery speeches in defense of Arab and Islamic
solidarity. Mursi was no doubt wary that Egypt’s
salafi party, al-Nour, would seek to exploit the crisis at the
Brotherhood’s expense. Further, a passive Egypt may have ignited renewed
jihadi activity in the Sinai.
Hence
Mursi, working in cooperation with the Obama administration, used
Egyptian good offices to head off a potential Israeli ground invasion
and broker the ceasefire. It
may be no small coincidence that just two days earlier, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) had announced a preliminary agreement
to loan Egypt $4.8 billion.
Yet
it is not clear that the ceasefire resolved any of the outstanding
issues that directly led to the crisis, such as whether Egypt will allow
Hamas to officially open
the Rafah border crossing in lieu of reopening the tunnels, whose closing precipitated the events
that led to the conflict.
This is a sensitive issue because
officially opening Rafah would mean de facto recognition of Hamas as the
sovereign authority over Gaza, and come directly at the Palestinian
Authority’s expense, something Egypt had been trying
to avoid. The ceasefire also sidestepped Israel’s concern that Hamas
will resume smuggling weapons into Gaza via Sudan and the Sinai.
It
appears that Mursi decided to use the ceasefire to play his own
double-game. Just thirty-six hours later, Mursi put the newly earned
American goodwill to the test by declaring
that presidential authority in Egypt would be shielded from judicial
review until a new constitution was ratified. In other words, Mursi was
attempting to parlay the political capital he earned with the Americans
into absolute freedom of action for the Brotherhood
in Egypt’s domestic political arena. It remains to be seen whether
either side of Mursi’s gambit—the fragile Hamas-Israel ceasefire or the
transparent domestic power grab—will hold. The first tranche of IMF
funds is not due to be released until the final
loan approval is confirmed on December 19. Whether or not Mursi
overplayed his hand and thus put the IMF loan at risk remains to be
seen.
Brandon Friedman is a Research Fellow at the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies and a Junior Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan
Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University.
The
Moshe
Dayan
Center publishes TEL AVIV NOTES, an analytical update on current affairs in the
Middle East , on the 10th and 26th of every month, as well as occasional Special Editions.
TEL AVIV NOTES is published with the support of the V. Sorell Foundation.
To republish an article in its entirety or as a derivative work, you must attribute it
to the author and the Moshe
Dayan
Center at
Tel
Aviv
University , and include a reference and hyperlink to the original article on the
Moshe
Dayan
Center 's website
http://www.dayan.org.
Previous editions of
TEL AVIV NOTES
can be accessed at www.dayan.org, under "Commentary."
You are subscribed to the Moshe Dayan Center Electronic Mailing List. Should you wish to unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@listserv.tau.ac.il, with the message "unsubscribe dayan-center."
You are subscribed to the Moshe Dayan Center Electronic Mailing List. Should you wish to unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@listserv.tau.ac.il, with the message "unsubscribe dayan-center."
No comments:
Post a Comment