fbpx

Analysis

BICOM Analysis: Could terrorism undermine the peace process?

[ssba]

Key Points

  •  In the current political reality, with the West Bank and Gaza under separate rule, Hamas terrorism is as much a political attack on the Palestinian Authority as it is an attack on Israel. Whilst attacks on Israeli civilians could yet undermine the peace talks, Israeli and Palestinian officials are currently negotiating knowing that opposing the radicals is a shared interest.
  • The recent escalation of Hamas terrorist attacks coincides with the resumption of direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The first three weeks of September have seen four Israelis killed in three shooting incidents, and some 20 rockets landing on southern Israel.
  • The Palestinian Authority has displayed determination in tracking down the terrorists in the West Bank, arresting several Hamas operatives; Israel has also continued counter-terrorism operations.

Introduction

The resumption of direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in early September has been accompanied by a rise in terrorist attacks on Israel. This is not unexpected. Briefing the cabinet last week, Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet) head Yuval Diskin assessed that terrorism would increase as peace talks with the Palestinians progressed. Israeli civilians have been targeted by Palestinian militants in the past in order to stall previous rounds of talks.  Whilst the IDF has responded to the violence with targeted operations against Hamas militants and installations, the response has been measured. Prime Minister Netanyahu has pledged not to allow terrorism to derail the peace talks. The human cost of the Hamas attacks has fallen on innocent Israelis, but Israel’s response reflects awareness that the terrorism is currently as much a political attack on the Palestinian Authority (PA) as it is an attack on Israel.

Escalating terror

On the evening of August 31, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders were gathering in Washington DC to launch the latest round of peace talks, four Israeli settlers were killed near on a road southeast of Kiryat Arba, close to Hebron. This was the first fatal terrorist attack on Israeli civilians in nearly a year, and the deadliest single attack since March 2008, when eight students were killed in a shooting attack at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem.

 

In the following two days, two further shooting incidents were recorded, in the area of Rimonim and near Ofra, both in the northern West Bank. Two Israeli civilians were wounded. The military wing of Hamas, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for all three incidents, calling them the ‘path of Ramadan’ attacks and promising more.

Since the beginning of September, there has also been a marked increase in rocket attacks on southern Israel from the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip. In the first eight months of 2010, the average number of rockets landing in Israel from Gaza was close to eight a month. Nineteen missiles have landed in Israel already this month. The highest daily tally in nearly two years was recorded on September 15th, with nine missiles hitting Israel.

Whilst Hamas appears now to have ended a three-year suspension of attacks on Israelis in the West Bank, this is not yet a return to a full-scale campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians. Greater PA security capacity, and increasing cooperation between them and Israeli security forces, has led to the arrests of most Hamas operatives in the West Bank. Israel’s anti-terrorism apparatus also remains in place. Hamas attempts to activate sleeper cells or to infiltrate new operatives into the West Bank will take time. It may also be hampered by Hamas’ West Bank leaders, who in contrast to the leadership in Gaza and Damascus, are reportedly more inclined to reconciliation than confrontation with the PA.

 

Israeli intelligence believes Hamas have developed the capability to fire rockets that could reach Tel Aviv. But even the more hard-line elements within Hamas will be wary of an escalation that would provoke major Israeli reprisals. Whilst sporadic rocket attacks on southern Israel will continue, the relative calm brought about by Operation Cast Lead is likely to be preserved for the time being.

The changing calculus of Israeli policy

Ahead of the direct talks, Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly stated that he seeks both legitimacy and security for Israel in any peace deal. In Washington, he remarked that ‘Achieving security is a must. Security is the foundation of peace. Without it, peace will unravel. With it, peace can be stable and enduring.’

 

Speaking the day after the shooting attack outside Kiryat Arba, and on the day peace talks opened in Washington, Netanyahu pledged, ‘I will not let the terrorists block our path to peace.’ However desirable it may be, Israeli leaders have rarely been in a position to separate Palestinian terrorism from the pursuit of peace.

Yitzhak Rabin’s Oslo-era policy between 1993 and 1995 – to negotiate as if there were no terrorism, and fight terrorists as if there were no negotiations – failed to overcome intense domestic opposition. As his successor between 1996 and 1999, Benjamin Netanyahu, took a far firmer line, linking Palestinian efforts to stop terrorism to progress in political negotiations. His doctrine of reciprocity stated baldly, ‘If they give, they’ll get; if they don’t give, they won’t get.’

Ariel Sharon, who as Prime Minister from 2001 to 2005 faced the most intensive wave of Palestinian terrorism during the Second Intifada, called on Yasser Arafat for seven days of quiet in order to resume peace talks. At the time, then-PA President Yasser Arafat was regarded not only in Israel, but internationally, as heavily implicated in supporting violence. He was notorious among other things for a revolving door policy, in which his security forces would arrest militants, only to release them again a short time later.

There is a marked contrast with the situation today. Netanyahu seems to believe that there have been critical changes on the Palestinian side. His endorsement of PA President Mahmoud Abbas as ‘my partner for peace’ at the Washington summit was a sign of this. Israel’s security professionals seem to concur. Briefing the cabinet last week, Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet) head Yuval Diskin said that cooperation between the IDF and the PA security apparatus is better now than at any point in the last 16 years. He described the PA as demonstrating a great deal of ‘motivation’ and ‘determination’ in preventing attacks, including arresting hundreds of Hamas activists.

Israel also enjoys the cooperation of Egypt, which sees Hamas as a threat to its own interests. A top Hamas official was arrested in Cairo in the past few days.

Palestinian Authority focus on diplomacy

Speaking after the shooting incident at Bani Naim, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad condemned the attack, which he said was, ‘contrary to the Palestinian national interest.’ That national interest, he stated, was best served by combining ‘political struggle’ with building the infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian state.

Unsurprisingly, the attacks on Israel have been praised by their perpetrators. Fawzi Barhoum, Hamas movement spokesman, claimed that the attack was the natural reaction to ‘Israel’s crimes.’ Palestinian sources reported that Hamas celebrated the attacks by handing out sweets at refugee camps.

Yet the Palestinian Authority seems to be undeterred in its opposition to the terrorists. On September 7 the Palestinian Authority security forces announced they had detained the terrorists who carried out the attacks at the Bani Naim and Rimonim. In response, Hamas called the detentions a ‘national betrayal’ and threatened that ‘the weapons that reached the heart of the occupier can reach you as well.’ Hamas leader Khaled Mashal denounced PA President Mahmoud Abbas as ‘a zero’.

The PA’s focus on the diplomatic process was also behind an angry exchange with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. In a clear attack on the PA, Ahmedinejad said that, ‘the fate of the Palestinians will be determined by the resistance of the nation and [its] citizens.’ In response Palestinian spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh attacked Ahmadinejad, claiming that ‘the man who does not represent the Iranian people… who faked the elections, oppresses the Iranian people and stole the regime would do better not to talk about Palestine.’

Conclusions

The current round of peace talks is by no means immune to terrorism. A further escalation by Hamas prompting more extensive Israeli military action against Palestinian militants could put greater political strain on the talks. So far, however, both Israeli and Palestinian leaders involved in the renewed negotiations are in the position whereby confronting Palestinian terrorism is a clear shared interest, in the face of the radical opposition of Hamas.

Related Articles

BICOM Research paper: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations – A Guide to the Issues, Players and Prospects – 14/9/2010

BICOM Analysis: Getting Past the Settlement Freeze Hurdle – 6/9/2010