This is an Israeli paper close to the Likud, so just ignore some of the rhetoric. However, it is interesting and shows Israeli perspective that they need to make a long term ceasefire deal with Gaza that involves lifting the siege. Otherwise this area will continue to be unstable.
..
..
Bracing for potential conflict in its north, Israel opts for restraint in Gaza
Friday's
rocket fire from Gaza at southern Israel was hardly a surprise. For several weeks now, the defense establishment has been operating with the understanding that Islamic Jihad was only looking for an excuse to act.
Given the volatile situation in the southern sector, Israel did its best not to give the terrorist group the reason it was looking for, dealing with Gaza with kid gloves: The transfer of goods was maintained in an orderly fashion, as was the fishing zone off Gaza;
Qatari aid funds were delivered in a timely fashion, and the Egypt-mediated talks on the ceasefire continued as usual. Even the Friday riot on the security fence was relatively calm.
Islamic Jihad didn't even have the usual excuse of infringement on its Iranian patron's interests in Syria, as Israel has refrained from targeting the Islamic republic's assets there, a decision that is part of a greater security situation assessment.
This time, it seems that the reason for the flare-up is rooted in the intensive struggle between Islamic Jihad and Hamas, which rule Gaza.
The dire economic situation in the Strip has brought it to the brink of economic ruin. Unemployment is soaring, the already dilapidated infrastructure is collapsing, and the Palestinian are growing restless. Hamas understands that war could topple its regime and is, therefore, trying to calm the situation via the indirect talks with Israel, which requires it refrains from provoking hostilities.
This leaves a vacuum that the Islamic Jihad is only too eager to fill. And in the absence of any oversight, it can do as it pleases – just as Hezbollah has been doing in Lebanon.
The thought that the Islamic Jihad operates under direct Iranian guidance is too simplistic. The leaders of the organization in Gaza consider themselves Palestinian patriots, and they are unlikely to rush to demolish the coastal enclave to benefit someone else. In any case, they do not need Tehran to goad them into a fight – there is no shortage of hotheads in Gaza looking for a confrontation.
Still, it is doubtful that Islamic Jihad's leaders want to spark an actual war, as they know it will wreak havoc on the Strip. Israel won't be able to fight Gaza only "halfway" and any rocket salvos fired on Israel will meet massive military pressure that could potentially end Hamas' rule. The result could be renewed Israeli rule over 2 million Gazans or anarchy – two options neither side finds appealing.
Israel seeks to prevent that. As before, the IDF's retaliation to Friday's fire targeted Hamas posts in the Gaza Strip, in order to spur it to
curb Islamic Jihad. This is likely to be effective now but less so going forward. In the absence of a major change in the reality in Gaza or serious progress in the negotiations for a long-term ceasefire, the future holds only another escalation.
It is also likely that, in the foreseeable future, Israel will seek to keep dealing with Gaza on the back burner. Senior political and military officials are aware of the public's criticism and the lack of reason in the fact that a small organization – a terrorist group no less – is setting the agenda for a country that is far stronger than it is, but the defense establishment's priority is currently the
developments on the northern sector, and the axis connecting Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria.
Military intelligence assessments clearly point to the fact that future skirmishes between Israel and Iran will grow more violent and far more volatile as they progress.
This does not necessarily bode well for the residents of Gaza vicinity communities but clearly, Israel will have to deal with Gaza eventually. This would entail either pursuing a deal that will lead to a long-term ceasefire but will demand serious concessions on both sides, or launching a wide-scale military campaign that will undoubtedly entail considerable risks.
...
....
