MIDDLE EAST

Israel has called-up 40,000 reservists in response to rocket attacks from Gaza and is the latest escalation in an increasingly dangerous confrontation in the Middle East. One may be of the opinion that Israel has shown commendable restraint by responding with targeted strikes against known Hamas missile bases and known operatives. But at least a dozen civilians have been reported dead in Gaza, which in turn has put localised pressure on Hamas to strike back, continuing and escalating the cycle of violence. Air raid sirens have been heard in and around Tel Aviv as Hamas have unleashed its long-range missiles.

A situation similar to that of 2008 – where a popular clamour for the Israeli Defence Force to enter Gaza – is evolving once again. Whilst hard for many Israelis to resist another military incursion, Benjamin Netanyahu and his government should hold back (if at all possible). Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ affords high level protection against the missiles and proved to be highly effective during a similar attack two years ago. Undoubtedly, the provocation being faced by Israelis is enormous: more than 100 rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel, and it is hard to discern any country facing a similar scenario exercising self-discipline and restraint in such circumstances.

However, the flare-up with Hamas can no longer be seen solely within the depressingly familiar context of the long-running Arab-Israeli dispute. With events elsewhere in the region as they are – in Syria, Iraq, tensions on the Sinai Peninsula and, potentially, great scope for both Jordon and Lebanon to be sucked into a wider conflagration – any intensification between Hamas and Israel will give the region as a whole a far more dangerous geopolitical edge. The Islamists of ISIS in their newly declared caliphate along Iraq’s frontier with Jordon want the common enemy of Israel drawn into the wider conflict. What is more, too, is that Hamas’s political hold in Gaza is notably unsettled and precarious, which is why it formulated a pact with Fatah in the West Bank. One reason for Israel’s reluctance to mount a ground operation is that the collapse of Hamas would encourage the rise and emergence of yet more extreme jihadist groups (as has happened in Iraq). Israel’s ratcheting up of the pressure through coordinated air strikes and mass troop mobilisation is intended to force a weakened Hamas to stop the rocket attacks.

It that plan fails, and the IDF deploys into Gaza, events will be much harder to control. Such action would seem certain to ignite trouble in the West Bank, where tensions remain fraught following the murder of a Palestinian boy in an apparent tit-for-tat response to the killing of three Israeli school children. Here, again, the Israelis have acted properly by arresting the suspects and allowing the law to take due process.

Any government’s priority is, of course, the protection of its citizens. But if the government of Israel can achieve that without fomenting and instigating yet more jihadist fanaticism, then surely that must be to Israel’s long-term advantage. Because of its prosperity, military power and international status, Israel has more to lose by intensifying its campaign in Gaza than maybe immediately obvious to its citizens. Certainly, the powerful using brute strength on the weak is never an attractive sight, whatever the level of provocation.

The United States will be in a position to point this out, and it must use its influence to calm tensions in a region that otherwise might escalate into something that will be more difficult to contain. An abiding peace in the region is now as far away as it has ever been, but surely no Israeli will wish to live in a perpetual state of continual conflict.

Infogram:

Map depicting where the missiles are falling in Israel.