Why Israel Attacked and What It Means

Gabriel Rom

“We are now going to find out whether those lessons from 2006 – on military preparation, on the need for effective military-political coordination, on operating in an immensely complex regional and global context, and on setting realistic goals for the use of military force – were indeed well learned.”

In retaliation to unyielding rocket attacks into Southern Israel, numbering recently to almost 200 a day, Israel launched a series of Airstrikes on Hamas positions, killing over 200 people. Hamas military installations, police stations, and residences of officials were all targeted. What we are seeing is possibly the most intense military action taken by Israel since the June 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

Some sort of Israeli military action was to be expected, but the intensity and haste in which these strikes were carried out made today’s events a sign of radical reshifting in Israeli military policy. Today’s attacks were a refutation of what many Israelis see as pointless diplomacy as well as ambivalent military incursions lasting for short periods of time, with usually minimal or negative results. As one analyst put it: “Israel’s policy of restraint is over”.

The rationale behind these strikes is a simple one: Pressure. The game is all about pressure. Israel, since the election of Hamas, has been trying to force Hamas to cease all their military operations, suicide recruitment, and on a basic level at least start to entertain the option that Israel will not be wiped of the face of the earth. All such things are relatively tough to achieve diplomatically when the group Israel trying to convince through talks and sanctions will not even recognize their existence, or right to exist. Diplomacy doesn’t work when political entities put religious ideals over the well being of their fellow citizens.

Today’s strikes are the beginning of an Israeli plan to dismantle the infrastructure of Hamas. What we are witnessing is monumental, it is the beginning of a plan to completely eliminate Hamas from the political and diplomatic landscape. Many Israelis see Hamas as the chief impediment to peace talks, and after Western support of Fatah, Hamas’s rival faction, resulted in nothing but heightened Gaza tension and even more Hamas sway, Israel has decided to do what it does best, take matters into their own hands.

Many parallels can be made to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, which was considered by many a stalemate or even a defeat for Israel. The geopolitical context in which Israel has attacked Hamas is immensely complex: Will Egypt who has taken the always risky route of mediation between Hamas and Israel, be forced to abandon talks due to these attacks? Will Iran supply Hamas with weapons, and intelligence to retaliate against Israel? In a conflict with so many actors, any small event sends of a wave of political, economic, and military shocks and aftershocks – and it is quite clear that today’s events were by no means “small”.

Israel has put herself back into the fire, the fire of international scrutiny, the fire of Arab retaliation, the fire of possible failure. Yet I strongly believe that this is a necessary fire. With the looming specter of a nuclear Iran, and no cessation of aggression for over 60 years from her neighbors, the nation of Israel has said enough is enough.