Another round of fighting has concluded in a cease-fire. Some people, Education Minister Naftali Bennett for instance, have already criticized it in principle. This is a type of default response, as if there were something wrong with ending the shooting, or ending it without reconquering Gaza or at the very least, ousting Hamas.
Israel doesn't want to conquer Gaza, and it's not its job to topple or install governments beyond its own borders. What it does want, however, is a tranquil border, its sovereignty respected and its citizens living in peace and security. Hence, there is nothing wrong with a cease-fire. And although a cease-fire isn't a goal in and of itself, it is a way to achieve the goal on behalf of which force was used.
Destroying tunnels and bombing other terrorist infrastructure in Gaza is crucial. This round will only be a success, however, if present conventions along the Gaza border are completely overhauled. Intolerable ground rules have taken shape along the Gaza border over the past three months, whereby Israel retaliates to rocket fire and infiltrations but allows cross-border incendiary kite terror. No one, of course, declared these ground rules, but they have been the norm nonetheless. The reason for this has been a fear of escalation.
Hamas, therefore, understood, justifiably from its perspective, that it had successfully achieved deterrence versus Israel. It made its terror of arson a daily routine. More than 1,000 fires consumed agricultural fields and natural groves in the western Negev, virtually unimpeded. The enemy turned the Israeli side of the border from a blossoming garden to scorched earth. It realized it could do this with immunity; Israel didn't do anything to stop it.
Constraint and conflict management were justified with the reasoning that Israel is employing all diplomatic leverage at its disposal to mold the border with Syria – trying to push Iran out and reaching understandings with Russia – and therefore it wouldn't be in its interest to engage in a military clash in the south. The opposite, however, is true: Efforts to simply absorb this terror of arson, at the same time Israel is busy shaping its border with Syria, signals to the Syrians that fields and groves in Israel are fair game; that it's okay, you can burn them.
The fields of the western Negev were ablaze last Friday as well. The large IDF airstrike in Gaza wasn't in response to that, rather to the grenade hurled at a group of soldiers which wounded an IDF officer. Consequently, Israel exhibited its adherence to these twisted rules of the game.
However, from the moment Israel decided to respond, and the more severe and significant the IDF's attacks became, there emerged an opportunity to change the rules of the game fundamentally. If this round ends and the arsonist terror persists, it will be a victory for Hamas – similar to the round on May 29 that ended in further erosion of Israeli deterrence and the Palestinians enhancing their own. Only dramatically changing the ground rules – meaning that arson terror and rocket terror will have the same ramifications – can be considered a success.
When the terror of arson ceases, it will be plausible to deem this latest round a win for Israel. If it continues, we will have to renew our attacks with even greater intensity, to force the enemy to internalize that the era of restraint is over.
