The Israeli-Palestinian Collision Course

Dr. Ehud Eilam discusses the tension between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and explains why it would be in the interest of both parties to avoid another confrontation in the West Bank

The Israeli-Palestinian Collision Course

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Photo: AP)

Israel has conducted a long and ongoing battle against Palestinian guerrilla and terror activity. Following the failure to reach a peace accord with the Palestinian Authority, Hamas’ unwillingness to talk, and its refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians has been mostly damage control.

Israel has attempted to delay any confrontation while continuing to act to prevent attacks on its citizens. It has tried to contain the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, holding the Palestinian rulers there responsible for stopping and restraining guerrilla and terror operations, as much as possible.

One could argue that both Israel and the United States have taken advantage of animosity among their enemies – the United States with Iran versus ISIS, and Israel with Hamas against more radical groups in the Gaza Strip.

The Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip is a small area (365 square kilometers) that is highly monitored by Israel, allowing it to gather vital information about the military activity of its enemies there. Despite its monitoring, the discovery of tunnels inside the Gaza Strip during the summer 2014 confrontation between Israel and Hamas (Operation Protective Edge) was both a surprise and a major security concern for Israel, particularly the underground routes leading into Israel.

While Israel underestimated the threat of the tunnels among the many security issues it faces, the lessons were learned, and since then the IDF has invested its efforts in fighting and destroying the tunnels. In early December this year, the IDF conducted a drill in case of an attack from the Gaza Strip. The training included ground, air, and naval units as well as other services like the Israel Police, examining several scenarios, such as penetration by tunnels, air, and sea.

It would be in the interest of both Israel and the PA to avoid another confrontation in the West Bank. For the PA, opening a diplomatic campaign against Israel – for example in the UN – would be futile if its home base were to go up in flames. Though the two sides have also been unable to negotiate a peace accord, they should at least maintain their security cooperation in order to prevent chaos in the West Bank.

The Obama administration might not cast a veto against attempts in the UN to create a Palestinian state unilaterally. It is also possible the United States would not support Israel in the case of another clash between the latter and the Palestinians. One example worth mentioning in this regard took place on October 1, 1985, when the IAF bombed the PLO headquarters in Tunisia. Three days after the attack, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 573, which condemned the Israeli raid. This decision was approved by 14 states. The United States, however, abstained.

***

This article is based on Ehud Eilam’s article: “Israel in the Face of Evolving Security Challenges,” the Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 2, Summer 2015

You might be interested also