After three months of fires in Israeli communities near the Gaza Strip border, the bottom line is deeply worrying: the IDF is paralyzed vis-à-vis Palestinian arson terrorism. The top military echelon may not see kite terrorism as a military challenge, but this issue has strategic significance.
The military was well prepared for the Hamas-orchestrated border riot campaign launched on March 30. As tens of thousands of Palestinians try to rush the border weekly, troops guarding the southern sector have so far eliminated dozens of terrorists who tried to breach the security fence, but the onslaught of incendiary kites and balloons was something of a surprise.
The element of surprise was mostly technological – who would have thought that such crude instruments such as kites and balloons could be used as tactical weapons? Yet the IDF was unable to devise immediate countermeasures against them.
So far, Palestinian arson terrorism has sparked 1,000 fires that have devoured over 8,200 acres of forest and agricultural land in Israeli border towns, with the damage totaling tens of millions of dollars. Environmental experts say it will take at least 15 years to rehabilitate the vegetation and wildlife in the scorched areas.
While the IDF continues to try various technologies to counter kite terrorism, so far, it has been bested by Hamas.
Some ministers on the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet see the situation as one in which Hamas has changed the equation on the ground. Cabinet hawks keep calling for a harsher Israeli response, but in the few instances when the IDF struck Hamas positions in Gaza over kite terrorism, the Islamist terrorist group retaliated by launching a rocket salvo on the border-adjacent communities.
That, it appears, was enough to deter the military, whose commanders appear to believe that any forceful Israeli response to arson terrorism would prompt a rapid security escalation that would surely trigger war, which no one wants.
The result is military paralysis opposite systematic arson attacks, which Hamas perceives as fear of confrontation. And Gaza's rulers have not been shy about bragging about it.
As weird as it may seem, the IDF does not regard arson terrorism as a military challenge. GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Eyal Zamir said recently that the underground barrier currently being built near the border to block Hamas' grid of terror tunnels costs much more than the total damage caused by the three-month incendiary kite campaign.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman may have thought at one point that the IDF would be able to extinguish the Palestinians' arson campaign but that has not happened, and some see the conduct of the IDF's top echelon as a symptom of a detached military elite.
Others continue to dismiss these fires as an inconsequential wave of Palestinian frustration that is of no strategic significance. But it is, in fact, very significant. Hamas has changed the equation on the ground: Not only is it no longer deterred by IDF strikes in Gaza, it has turned the tables and now the Israeli military is the one that is wary of retaliating. Hamas is systematically torching everything their kites touch on the Israeli side of the border while the IDF is literally sitting on the fence.
Some ministers on the right have accused Netanyahu and Lieberman of tolerating the military's inaction rather than pushing it to find a creative solution. And so far, neither Netanyahu nor Lieberman have pounded their fist on the table and demanded answers and options.
Still, one must also see the other side of this equation: Many Israeli prime ministers were less calculated, often opting for a knee-jerk reaction. Overall, that has rarely worked in Israel's favor.
Letting the tensions in Gaza reach boiling point at this time is an Iranian interest as well as a scenario Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas favors, so an Israeli policy of restraint is somewhat unavoidable.
Those who follow the situation on the Gaza border naturally ask a few questions, for example, what is going on in the diplomatic sphere that is causing Israel to opt for restraint in the face of Hamas' audacity.
Over the past week, much has been said about the United States' "Gaza first" initiative, involving a generous humanitarian aid package in exchange for a long-term cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
Some have said that Israel is exercising restraint so as not to jeopardize this move, but the truth is that Gaza is a more complicated project than trying to denuclearize North Korea. Even if senior White House adviser Jared Kushner and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are pushing this initiative with all they have – they have a long road ahead of them.
Senior cabinet ministers believe the real threat lies in Syria, where Iran is relentlessly trying to entrench itself militarily.
According to a recent report in The Economist, Iranian-backed militias in Syria are 80,000 strong and Tehran is sparing no effort to set up military and intelligence infrastructure in the war-torn country.
Israel's captains, it seems, believe that in the greater scheme of things, if you want to deal with the Iranians and at the same time prevent a major war in the northern sector, you must exercise restraint on the Gaza border.
A senior Jerusalem official told Israel Hayom that Abbas and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have identical interests, and both would like to see the ticking time bomb that is Gaza blow up in Israel's face. A war in Gaza will reduce global attention to Syria while also reducing Israel's intelligence effort there.
Still, even ministers who are focused on the situation in Syria admit the Gaza border is on the verge of conflagration. It is only a matter of time.
Unnecessary provocation
The highly controversial article in the nation-state bill that allows Jewish communities to legally exclude non-Jews, is a High Court of Justice appeal in the making.
It is not for nothing that Article 7b has sparked a political firestorm, and Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit and President Reuven Rivlin are right to say that it is discriminatory and unacceptable.
This article is a thorn that must be removed from the nation-state bill's side if it is to be inducted as a basic law.
The nation-state bill, which aims to anchor Israel's status as a "Jewish state with a democratic regime" and preserve the country's Jewish character, state symbols and sacred Jewish sites according to Jewish tradition, is a highly important legislative proposal, and it is a mistake to focus on an article that seeks to undo previous High Court ruling stating such exclusion is illegal.
It is up to reality to determine the cultural identity of communities in Israel – the same reality that supports the existence of mixed Jewish-Arab communities today.
This issue should never have been brought up. The nature of a community should be left to pragmatism, as dictated by the circumstances on the ground, and not be subject to a law that sets in place restrictions that are utterly unacceptable in this day and age.
Many cities in Israel may find that they have to adjust to an economic-cultural reality in which Arabs live in modern Israeli society. The latter has great advantages because it is a mixed society that needs to find checks and balances between cultures.
Any legal provision allowing exclusion based on religion or ethnicity will not stand up to the High Court's scrutiny and only further divide Israeli society.
But even worse, instead of fostering a natural, pragmatic development in Jewish-Arab relations, this Article 7b invites unnecessary provocations, mostly by families that will put it to a legal wwww. Internal lawfare will only poison the atmosphere in Israel, and overseas, it will be used by anti-Israel elements to present the Jewish state as racist.
