“The cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza appears to be
holding even after militants fired rockets into Israeli territory.” This was
how the BBC’s Radio Four described the situation around the Gaza Strip a
couple of weeks ago; in other words, the new definition of a cease-fire is
one in which the Palestinians continue firing Kassams while the IDF holds
its fire. This quote was originally noted by Charles Moore in The Spectator
magazine, but while he used it to pillory the BBC, it is now obvious that it
is also the way that the Israeli leadership understands the cease-fire.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with the backing of Foreign Minister Tzipi
Livni, who in recent months has been receiving a much wider place in the
national decision-making process, has decided – despite the opposition of
Defense Minister Amir Peretz, most of the other ministers and the IDF’s high
command – that Israel can afford to absorb two or three Kassams a day
falling in the western Negev, in return for a general feeling of relative
calm and a favorable international climate. Olmert’s calculation is that the
firings are mainly haphazard, with little chance of hitting a civilian
target and causing major damage. Most of the rockets on Thursday fell within
the Palestinian territory, and at this stage, it is better to keep the IDF
on a leash. He’s being helped also by the mainstream press which has been
content over the last few weeks to relegate the Kassams to the back pages;
Benny Sela and the murder of Tair Rada are sexier stories. The feeling among
Israel’s diplomatic corps is that this is a period of grace for the country.
The major enemies – Syria, Hizbullah and Iran – are beginning to suffer from
international isolation and all that the world is currently demanding of
Israel is that it lends Abu Mazen a helping hand. The argument is that the
Kassams are being fired by Islamic Jihad and other groups opposed to the
Palestinian president and retaliating with a large-scale attack will just be
playing into their hands. Israel apparently has more to gain by staying put.
Much better not to cause any new problems for George Bush, who is busy right
now burying the Baker-Hamilton report’s recommendations and gearing up for
the US’s last big push in Iraq. If we manage to keep our backyard quiet,
there’s also a chance that the powers-that-be will finally get serious about
the Iranian nuclear program. All this seems to make perfect realpolitik
sense, especially since the IDF hasn’t achieved that great a track record in
dealing with the Kassam threat, even when it was allowed to roam and fire at
will. Every resource was used – manned and unmanned aircraft, artillery,
tanks and special forces, backed up by every available intelligence asset.
Hundreds of terrorists were killed, but the firings didn’t stop and Israel’s
image suffered when the international media preferred to focus on civilians
killed in Beit Hanun rather than on the people of Sderot living under
constant bombardment.

The only problem is that we tried this policy before and it blew up in our
faces. Ten months of restraint around Gaza ended with the capture of Gilad
Shalit in June.

Two weeks later, six years of ostensible calm on the Lebanese border were
ended abruptly by the Hizbullah attack at Zarit, the death of eight
soldiers, the abduction of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser to an as yet
unknown fate and the rest of the summer’s disasters.

Not retaliating might create the illusion of quiet for the majority of the
local population and a few temporary points in the diplomatic arena, but in
the rough neighborhood we live in, it’s merely interpreted as a sign of
weakness. The Kassams might be mainly a demonstration of opposition to Abu
Mazen’s weak attempts to establish control, but the longer they’re allowed
to get away with it, others are going to take advantage and join in.