The scene is depressingly familiar: the Israeli tanks and rockets, the enraged Palestinian gunmen, the destroyed homes of Palestinians who already have next to nothing, the grieving parents of Israeli soldiers.
But as Israel’s incursion into Gaza enters its third week, and even as Israeli tanks entered Lebanon, there’s one big difference: many of the voices that usually shout that it’s all Israel’s fault are speaking in subdued, uncertain tones.
Israel’s attacks to silence the Kassam rockets and free a kidnapped soldier in territory it abandoned a year ago weren’t exactly welcomed in Arab and European capitals, but the reflexive criticism of its actions came slower, with less emotional punch, than usual. The administration in Washington, feeling little pressure from its European and Arab allies, has had little to say.
The muted reaction may reflect a global weariness with the Middle East conflict. And for the U.S. government, the Europeans and others, something else is at work: a frustration with the Palestinians and a recognition that Israel’s leaders have very few palatable options in the face of a belligerent and unbending Hamas, now in control of the Palestinian Authority.
The world, at press time, was basically silent, too, on the Hezbollah kidnapping of two more Israeli soldiers.
There is a growing consensus even in European capitals and among U.S. allies in the Arab world, as well as Washington, that with Hamas in the saddle, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, newly elected on a platform based mostly on plans for sweeping West Bank withdrawals, may have had little choice but to strike hard against the new wave of attacks.
That doesn’t mean the U.S. and others think Israel’s incursions are a wise policy; it’s just that it’s getting harder and harder to argue that Israel should be talking, not fighting, especially since the new Palestinian Authority leadership is openly committed to war, not negotiations.
Last week Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum called for stepped-up U.S. involvement to end the crisis.
“While efforts exerted thus far by other parties, and in particular those of Egypt, are valuable, they will come to naught unless and until the United States becomes seriously engaged in helping find an expeditious and durable resolution to this intolerable crisis,” said APN leader Debra DeLee.
But there was little expectation Washington would jump into the fray, especially now that the Hamas military wing, based in Damascus, seems to be the dominant force on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank.
President Bush came to Washington in 2001 with a staunchly pro-Israel perspective and a deep-seated reluctance to get involved in Israel-Palestinian mediation, a sharp contrast to the previous four administrations.
But events since the election of a Hamas government in January have created a new standard of detachment.
The kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit on June 25 in a cross-border raid, the stepped-up Kassam rocket fire into Israel and the resulting Israeli incursion into Gaza sparked a crisis that threatens to generate a broader conflict — and yet Washington has been largely silent, except for laying down some broad-brush rules for the Israelis, starting with the need for Israel to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.
The administration has repeatedly said that the “root cause” of the current crisis is Shalit’s kidnapping. It has castigated the Palestinian Authority for failing to stop the rockets and Hamas for refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Its foreign policy plate is overflowing with ongoing wars in Iran and Afghanistan, the looming conflict with Iran and this summer’s joker in the deck — North Korea’s finger-in-the-eye missile tests. Domestic problems abound, and the President’s political base is crumbling.
With all its other problems, administration officials seem to believe it would be foolish to squander precious diplomatic resources in a fruitless effort to press for negotiations with a Palestinian government headed by an unrepentant terrorist organization.
And outside pressure on the administration to get involved has plunged since the election victory of Hamas. The Europeans and friendly Arab countries have been going through the usual rituals of criticizing Israel, but not as if they meant it. Nobody is leaning on Washington to get more involved because of the Hamas factor.
“Everybody has gone silent because of Hamas,” said Edward Walker, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and now the president of the Middle East Institute. “Nobody has any sympathy left for the Palestinians; there is a sense they now deserve what they get.”
There is a widespread understanding of the dangers here — that Israel’s military actions, propelled at least in part by domestic politics, may just add to Hamas’ public support in Gaza and the West Bank; that the fighting could prompt a massive humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories; that the conflict could spread if Israel decides to strike the Hamas leadership in Syria.
But unlike previous crises, there is also a degree of understanding of the pressures Israeli leaders face as the terror attacks continue and disappointment with the Palestinians.
And there is a growing recognition around the world of the deep hole Palestinian voters dug for themselves when they elected a government committed to intensifying the conflict, not ending it.
James D. Besser is a Washington correspondent for Jewish newspapers across the country.