Al-Aqsa Intifada
|
Since September 29, 2000, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have been engaged in a violent confrontation, which is defined and portrayed differently by each of the parties. The State of Israel describes the situation as a limited confrontation that threatens to escalate into a limited war or even a regional war.1 The PA, on the other hand, defines the situation as a popular uprising — ‘The al-Aqsa Intifada’ or the ‘Intifada for Independence.’ According to the PA, the Intifada is a well-organized popular uprising whose goal is to further the establishment of the Palestinian State.2 In spite of the differences in defining and understanding the situation, it is obvious that there has been a fundamental change in the Palestinian modus operandi, and that they have reverted to the use of ‘armed struggle’ as a tool of policy. At the same time, they reserve the option of the political process which has been Yasser Arafat’s preferred strategic option since the Oslo Agreement of September 13, 1993.3 Although we have no exact knowledge of what brought about Arafat’s strategic policy change vis-a-vis the peace process, it can be assumed that his decision was influenced by a variety of factors. Among them:
Although the Palestinians describe the confrontation as an Intifada – a concept which confers upon it the quality of a popular uprising – it is not a spontaneous popular uprising as was the first Intifada. The original Intifada, which broke out in 1987, was directed, at least initially, by the ‘Palestinian street.’ It was initiated from the bottom up. The current uprising, at the other end, was initiated from the top down; it was instigated and directed by the Palestinian Authority. Thus, the al-Aqsa Intifada represents a confrontation, not between occupier and occupied, but rather, between a semi-state authority (the PA) and the State of Israel.6 Characteristics of the Confrontation The current confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians can be defined as a low-intensity or an asymmetrical confrontation, which takes place mainly in the urban areas.7 Such areas are, by their very nature, the optimal locales for the ‘weaker side’ in an asymmetric confrontation. Both the requirements of maintaining a country’s ‘image’ and the considerations of morality and purity of arms greatly limit the operational options of the ‘strong side’ in the conflict — in this case, Israel. Thus the urban venue of the confrontation significantly reduces Israel’s military superiority, since a vast majority of possible tactical strikes are ruled out by the need to avoid civilian casualties. The Palestinians’ stated goals in initiating the al-Aqsa Intifada are the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, with Jerusalem as its capital, within the 1967 borders, and the realization of the right of return for the Palestinian refugees.8 The Palestinian armed struggle combines a civil popular uprising — in which civilians hurl stones and fire-bombs at the IDF personnel — with limited terrorist activities perpetrated by the Palestinian security forces. The intention is to wear down Israeli resistance, particularly from the political and social standpoint, and to obtain Arab and international involvement and support for the Palestinian position. This activity is aimed at forcing Israel to make the maximum concessions towards Palestinian demands. The Palestinian struggle does not focus solely on violent armed struggle (although this violent civilian and military activity is the central component), but also on five other arenas of confrontation. According to the Palestinian perception, the desired goals can be achieved only by success in all of these areas combined. The five arenas of confrontation are:
As mentioned, there are connections and reciprocal influences between these arenas and the result of the whole campaign will be determined by weighing the achievements in their entirety. The Urban Dimension The Israeli-Palestinian conflict occurs in two main urban areas:9
An additional area of confrontation, albeit with different characteristics, can be witnessed in the Galilee, in urban strips along the main thoroughfares — Wadi Ara and the Acre-Carmiel road. There are various kinds of urban confrontation models, each with different characteristics:
Combat in urban areas has several main characteristics:10
The Asymmetric Dimension The Palestinians, being aware of the asymmetric character of the conflict, make every effort to balance the asymmetric components. This is sought to be achieved through an expansion of the boundaries of the conflict and by enlisting power mechanisms to offset the asymmetric balance between Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinian side is thus endeavoring to expand the boundaries of the conflict, as follows: The Palestinian Front: The Palestinian Authority is making considerable efforts to enlist Israeli Arabs to their struggle. Between September 29 and October 8, 2000, Israeli Arabs rioted and blocked highways and junctions. The riots ended in the deaths of 14 citizens, including 13 Arabs and a Jew.11 The PA is also encouraging dispersed Palestinians in the Arab world to support the struggle of the Palestinian Authority in Israel, and to put pressure on Arab governments. The PA is attempting to enlist Palestinians all over the world into its propaganda campaign, as a political and social ‘lobby’ in those countries where the Palestinians reside, with the goal of pressurising their governments to support the Palestinian side in the conflict. The Arab Front: The Palestinian Authority, on Yasser Arafat’s directives, is attempting to enlist the support of the Arab countries for both the armed struggle and for the continuation of the peace process, at one and the same time.12 The Palestinian Authority gives considerable weight to the position of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is a central figure in the peace process, and to the support of the Arab League. When Israel bombed Palestinian Authority targets in the Gaza Strip, in the aftermath of the bombing of a school bus in Kfar Darom,13 Egypt recalled its Ambassador from Israel to express support and solidarity with the Palestinian position. Arafat thus scored points in his manoeuvres within the Arab arena. The Palestinian Authority’s success in garnering Arab support is, at the moment, limited primarily to political and moral support, along with the limited economic support agreed upon at the Arab Summit. Iraq, the most extreme country within the Arab camp, was the only country to offer military support, but this initiative was discarded due to international pressure and the objection of other Arab countries.14 In any event, the threat that the Arab world would be drawn into the conflict, and the strategic threat of a possible escalation and spiral into regional war is, without doubt, a useful tool to pressurise Israel. This threat hinders Israel’s reaction to Palestinian terrorism and is, thus, an important component in offsetting the asymmetry between the sides. The Islamic Front: From the onset of the conflict, the Palestinian Authority has placed the issue of sovereignty over Jerusalem, the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock at the centre of the confrontation. The PA claims to have initiated the conflict in order to protect the Islamic holy places from Israel’s ‘evil schemes’, and the Palestinians see themselves as warriors in a religious struggle. The Palestinian Authority is therefore attempting to expand the meaning of the conflict to include a national and religious confrontation — Islam against Zionism and Judaism.15 The eruption of riots at the Temple Mount16 enabled the PA to inject content into the name ‘al-Aqsa Intifada’. This step was intended to enlist the support of the entire Moslem world for the Palestinian side. Moreover, the religious character of the conflict gave the PA the necessary excuse to improve its relations with certain Islamic terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, the Palestinian Jihad, and even with the Hizballah. This, in turn, allowed the PA to release Hamas and Palestinian Jihad terrorists from its prisons and give them the ‘green light’ to renew their terror attacks against Israel, as partners to the broader conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.17 The International Front: The Palestinian Authority is making every effort to enlist the support of the international community for the Palestinian cause. At the practical level, the PA is striving to ‘internationalize’ the conflict by presenting itself as the underdog and calling for a United Nations Peacekeeping Force to ‘protect’ the Palestinians from Israel.18 As mentioned above, the PA is striving for the optimum goal of forcing an agreement on Israel under the auspices of the international community and perhaps even with the backing of an international force. As an interim goal, the Palestinians are taking advantage of information and propaganda achievements, such as declarations of support from global leaders, United Nations resolutions, as well as humanitarian aid, which enhances the will of the Palestinian populace to sustain, or at least condone, the violence. The Palestinian Authority’s objective is to expand the conflict on all four of these levels; all of the PA’s military and civilian activity is directed towards advancing this goal. The response of the different factors in the various arenas significantly contributes to the restriction of Israel’s retaliation ability and as a result, reduces the asymmetry between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. The Military Dimension of a Limited Confrontation in Urban Areas As mentioned, the Palestinians conduct a significant part of their armed uprising in urban areas. The types of confrontations fall into three main categories:
These three modes of action complement each other within the framework of the Palestinian struggle, and are subject to modification according to the over-all needs of the PA. At times, the primary activity is popular violence, which serves the needs of the propaganda campaign, while at other times, the PA relies more on guerilla warfare and terrorism as a means of escalating the conflict. An analysis of the Palestinian operative methods points to a clear connection between its choice of method and the venue of confrontation, namely, urban areas. The urban arena is the natural focal point for mass civilian disturbances and riots. The civilians who participate in these disturbances reside nearby, are available for action at all times, do not require complicated organization and logistics, and at the end of the activity, return to their daily routines. Moreover, the rioters can mingle with crowds of bystanders, who take no active part in the disturbances, thereby greatly restricting the enemy’s response. The PA often makes cynical use of children and encourages them to take part in the demonstrations. General Yitzhak Eitan, Commander of the Central District, stated "Unfortunately, the Palestinians cynically use children, women and youth to confront the Israeli soldiers. They positioned them in the front line in order to put the IDF in an awkward and difficult position."22 Referring to this tactic, General Giora Ireland, IDF Head of Operations, stated "The Palestinians make deliberate use of children, with the clear aim of increasing the number of casualties. We have here a bizarre situation whereby the other side is actually trying to increase its casualties. There is a limit to our ability to prevent them from achieving their desired aim."23 According to statistics published in a report by the ‘Betzelem’ human rights organization, between September 29 and December 2, 2000, approximately 25 per cent of the Palestinian civilian casualties were minors under the age of 17 (50 out of 204 Palestinian civilian casualties).24 In most civil disturbances witnessed thus far, stone-throwing and fire-bombs mark only the preliminary stage, followed by shooting by gunmen hidden in the crowds, or by snipers stationed atop nearby buildings. The following incident, which occurred on October 27, 2000, is a good illustration of the Palestinian modus operandi:25 At noon on October 27, 2000, a mass demonstration was held by the Palestinians at a major junction in the West Bank near the main entry to the town of Ramallah. Approximately ten thousand fire-bomb and stone-throwing demonstrators advanced to within 20-30 metres of the IDF baricade. The soldiers manning the barrier reacted with tear gas grenades and rubber bullets to disperse the demonstrators. During the demonstration, a large crowd, including members of the media, had gathered in the adjacent streets. Roughly an hour into the confrontation, Palestinian snipers opened fire on the IDF baricade, and the soldiers returned fire. From that moment, the demonstrators and the crowd dispersed, while the shooting continued. In the incident, one Palestinian was killed and many were injured; there were no casualties on the side of the IDF. This kind of activity usually culminates with casualties among the rioting civilians, and thus feeds the Palestinian propaganda machine and legitimizes their demand for international and Arab protection of the Palestinian ‘civilians.’ Built-up areas, particularly the periphery of towns and villages close to major thoroughfares, settlements and Israeli suburbs are the main venues of activity for guerilla and terrorist strikes. The squads complete all their preparations deep inside built-up areas and arrive at the area of operation on their own initiative and at a time and place of their choosing. The attacks are carried out from built-up areas populated by civilians who, in general, do not take part in the hostilities — a factor that considerably inhibits the IDF’s retaliatory actions. At the end of the operation, the perpetrators return to their safe houses deep inside the urban area.26 An example of this modus operandi was seen at Bituniya in Ramallah. At the entrance to the village, several metres from the villagers’ homes, Force 17 (the elite force of the PA) erected their headquarters. The gunmen shot at the IDF camp, situated on a hill opposite Bituniya, from their headquarters and from additional buildings nearby. The IDF’s return fire hit the buildings from which the gunmen were shooting.27 Another example is Beit Jala, a Palestinian village, from which gunmen using the homes of the local inhabitants, open fire on the nearby Israeli neighborhood of Gilo. In one case, according to the testimony of the houseowners, four armed gunmen arrived and informed the houseowners that they were about to open fire on the Israelis and before they were able to leave their home, the gunmen opened fire, thus drawing Israeli counterfire, which caused damage to the house.28 Characteristic of Palestinian guerilla and terrorist activity is the shooting from built-up areas at army posts and installations, as well as settlements and villages. During the first few months of the current conflict, there were many cases of Palestinian gunmen shooting at settlements, particularly Psagot, Vered Yericho and the suburb of Gilo in Jerusalem. The shooting occurred almost every night from Palestinian-controlled urban areas. Between September 29 and December 2, 2000, 13 Israeli citizens were killed and 118 wounded alongwith considerable damage to property.29 Another type of attack, the purpose of which is to hamper Israeli traffic between urban centers, is carried out against motor vehicles at traffic junctions. This is usually done by ambushing cars or by activating roadside bombs and, on occasions, a combination of both (detonation of a roadside bomb, followed by shooting). This was the case with the Kfar Darom attack in which two people were killed and nine others injured, five of them children. Two young children from the same family had to have their limbs amputated. Hisham Abed el-Razek, Minister-in-charge of Prisoners in the PA justified this attack, stating: "The perpetrators of this attack are Palestinians. We carried out the attack against the occupier of our lands. From our point of view, every action against the occupation is legitimate."30 These activities also make some use of urban areas, in that, although they are not usually carried out there, the attackers depart from and return to towns and villages after the attack. Consequently, the possibility of retaliatory action is limited. Urban friction points at which terror and guerilla activity continues for a long period tend to eventually become a no-man’s land owing to the departure of the civilian population. Such areas now include the outskirts of Palestinian villages such as Ramallah, opposite Psagot, and the town of Beit Jallah, opposite Gilo. These no-man’s regions enable relative freedom of action for the Palestinian attackers. However, there is internal pressure in the Palestinian camp to limit these areas as far as possible, so as to avoid causing suffering and damage to the civilian population.31 Unorganized groups of armed Palestinians often participate in shooting attacks and ambushes alongside members of the various Palestinian security forces. The foremost such group is the Tanzim, the Fatah terror organization’s armed militia. These bodies maintain headquarters, equipment depots, ammunition and operation centers, all concentrated in the midst of civilian populations, which gives them a measure of security from reprisal or attack. Such a choice of venue confers on the Palestinian attack units certain significant tactical advantages:
Israeli Goals in the Conflict Israel’s goal is to bring the conflict to a conclusion as quickly as possible, while limiting the number of casualties as far as possible. In addition, Israel seeks the return of the Palestinians to the negotiating table without allowing them to gain concessions as a result of violence.32 Particularly problematic for Israel is the fighting involving the civilian population, at times led by Palestinians including teenagers and children, many of whom are brought to the ‘friction points’ in special buses by the PA who order schools to close for this purpose. These young people participate in mass civilian disturbances and riots — most of which occur in front of television cameras — using stones and molotov cocktails. Disturbances of this kind involve severe difficulties for the IDF, which is unable to respond with force to quell the disturbances. The IDF strives to avoid harming civilians and causing environmental damage. For this reason, the IDF attempts to avoid fighting in built-up areas, which usually involves many casualties. Instead, Israel focuses on attacking the terrorist squads, making every effort to pinpoint the target precisely using accurate sniper fire, artillery, or combat helicopters. At a press conference on October 3, 2000, General Giora Ieland, Head of Operations, stated: "We are very restrained in our use of live gunfire, and only open fire when there is a danger to life."33 Similar statements were made by the Chief of Staff, Shaul Mofaz, on October 8, 2000. The self-imposed limitations on the use of fire-power significantly reduces the advantage of the IDF’s military and technological power and tends to impose a posture of static firing, usually in retaliation, along the urban friction points. As a result of these limitations, the IDF’s activities can be characterized as follows:
Israel deals with the Palestinian challenge by using combined military and economic measures, such as encircling Palestinian towns, imposing a closure on Palestinian areas and preventing Palestinians from crossing into Israel. Israel also reserves the option of closing check points between PA areas and external borders, such as the Jordan valley crossing points, the Rafiah check point into Egypt and the Palestinian airport at Dahaniya.35 These measures are intended to pressurise the PA and the Palestinian populace to reduce the level of violence and prevent attacks. Moral considerations and the concern over international pressure tend to result in only partial closures on PA areas. For this reason, the effectiveness of these measures is limited.36 Additional IDF activities aim to cope with the limitations at the points of conflict, including measures to limit the access to specific areas used as cover for hostile elements, or the destruction of structures or foliage that have been used as cover for past attacks. The IDF has also constructed by-pass roads to urban centers, with the intention of reducing friction with the Palestinian side and forcing the attackers to leave the urban areas in order to carry out attacks on Israeli traffic. The Israeli dilemma in dealing with the PA’s behaviour has worsened due to the fact that, since the PA abandoned the peace process, it has been operating as a classical ‘terrorism-supporting entity.’ The PA initiates, organizes, supports and executes guerilla warfare and terrorism. ‘The Tanzim’, who are an integral part of the Fatah, alongwith the various security arms of the PA, are directly involved in carrying out the PA’s violent policy. The Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and the various ‘Palestinian Fronts’ join them in perpetrating attacks from the area under the PA’s control and then return to their sheltered territory. This has led Israel to initiate a policy of ‘localized prevention.’ This policy is based on the practical considerations of dealing directly with the perpetrators and their handlers. There is also a moral aspect to this policy in that the targets of attack are those who are directly responsible for terrorism, rather than innocent people. This contrasts with the wider collateral damage that would be unavoidable if the IDF were to retaliate directly to the massive shooting carried out by the Palestinians from urban inhabited areas. Till February 19, 2001, fifteen attacks against Palestinian commanders and key activists had been attributed to Israel. Some of these were PA security personnel or members of terrorist organizations who were personally responsible for terror attacks. In the last of these attacks, a Hamas activist was killed in Nablus on February 19, 2001. The terrorist, Mahmoud el-Madani, was involved in two attacks — in Hadera and Natanya, both major cities in Israel, that were chosen for their large concentration of residents as being suitable for suicide attacks and car-bombings.37 The PA has refused to act in accordance with the Oslo Agreement and arrest — and even to extradite — murderers of Israelis, and to otherwise operate as a sovereign authority. This has compelled Israel, on simple imperatives of survival, to act against the terrorists in order to bring them to justice in Israel or to attack them in their hiding places. In addition to this defensive policy of preventing terrorism, Israel is making intensive efforts to capture the terrorists and bring them to justice for the murder of innocent Israelis. For example, Israel captured some of those who carried out the lynching of two Israeli reserve soldiers who mistakenly found themselves in Ramallah. Israeli security forces also arrested a 25-year-old Palestinian woman, Mona Najar, who confessed to enticing, through the internet, a 16 year-old high-school student to his death.38 Those arrested are given the opportunity to defend themselves in court. Foreign Elements in PA Terror Activity The Palestinian Authority’s about-face — from negotiation to guerilla warfare and terrorism — has made the terrorist activity of foreign elements easier, particularly those opposed to the peace process with Israel, such as Iran and its proxy, Hizballah. Even before the outbreak of the current hostilities, these two made every effort to foil the peace process by supporting the fundamentalist organizations in carrying out terror attacks. In the new reality, their strategic aim is now to harm the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians in such a way that it will be difficult for the two communities to return to a relationship based on mutual trust and to conclude a peace treaty. To this end, Hizballah, in co-ordination with Iran, has prepared a strategic plan of action which is intended to accelerate the perpetration of massive terror attacks in Israel. To put this plan into operation, the Hizballah is proceeding on several different planes:
At the same time, Hizballah also perpetrates terror attacks on Israel’s Northern border in order to exacerbate the situation between Lebanon and Israel. Their aim is to prevent the signing of a peace treaty between these two States, notwithstanding the fact that the U.N. has determined that Israel has fully complied with the U.N. Security Council Resolution 42541 concerning withdrawal from Lebanon. Hizballah explains this activity as its ‘contribution’ to the Palestinian struggle in the territories where they strive to serve as a role model. The involvement of Iran and Hizballah in what is happening in the territories, despite the fact that they are not the motivators of the violence, is undoubtedly an added force in the Palestinians’ ability to perpetrate terror attacks on a large scale in a more ‘professional’ manner. The Afghanistan Alumni and their Connection to the Activity against Israel in the Current Conflict An additional force seeking to take advantage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to convert it from a national one into a religious one, is Osama bin Laden and his fellow Afghanistan Alumni.42 With the outbreak of hostilities in Israel and the Territories, Sunni Islamic fundamentalist forces in various countries took advantage of the conflict, which had ostensibly broken out because the Jews were said to be trying to take control of the Temple Mount and to harm the Islamic holy sites there. In October 2000, the Chechnians called for a Jihad against Israel and expressed their willingness to send 150 fighters there.43 One of the main leaders of the Afghanistan Alumni is Abu Hamza – known as ‘The Egyptian,’ and whose real name is Mustafa Kamal. His London-based ‘Anzar al-Shriya’ organization stated in a religious publication: "The Muslims are called to support the Jihad and Intifada warriors against Israel, and to donate their money, bodies and propaganda." On December 27, 2000, Sheikh Omar Bakri published a call on the internet site of the Islamic organization "al Mohajirun" (which also operates from London) to demonstrate in support of the Intifada during Ramadan. Since the commencement of the uprising in the Territories, the Afganistan Alumni have not carried out any terror attacks against Israeli targets, neither in Israel proper nor abroad. However, due to Osama bin Laden’s modus operandi and that of his associates, there is a real possibility of such attacks — not only because of their verbal attacks against Israel, but also because of the attacks carried out in the past, which required thorough and lengthy preparations. The Afghanistan Alumni’s activity against Israel during the current hostilities does not play a decisive role at present; but their financial and propaganda support encourages the violence and could, if the armed conflict continues, cause an escalation if they carry out their threats to despatch terror cells to the territories to perpetrate attacks against Israel. Palestinian Strategic Terrorism Palestinian strategic terrorism44 is led today by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, with the implicit consent of the Palestinian Authority. The PA reserves the right to regulate terrorist activity when it believes that attacks would jeopardize political gains. The release from prison of terrorists belonging to these organizations, and the freedom of action and occasional assistance granted to them by the PA, have enabled them to prepare and execute large-scale attacks, such as car-bomb and suicide attacks. Most of the attacks have been directed at Israeli urban areas, in order to exact the maximum price and thus to influence Israeli public opinion. The recent attacks include:
These attacks, while not serving the Palestinian propaganda campaign, have significantly affected Israeli morale. It is also clear that Palestinian security personnel and the Fatah Tanzim are involved in the preparation of attacks inside Israel. The al-Aqsa Intifada was intended to be a significant opportunity for the Islamic terror organizations, the Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, to justify their ‘achievements’ in the struggle against Israel. From their perspective, the political process and the Oslo Accords have failed to gain the strategic aims of the Palestinian Authority. With the breakdown of the peace process, they say, Israel has shown its true colours. Complexities have beset the two organisations in the recent years. While at their height, during the years 1995-97, they perpetrated several high-profile suicide attacks in Israeli cities, causing considerable damage to the Israeli morale. However, the Islamic groups now seem to have passed their peak. They found it difficult to continue carrying out ‘strategic’ terror attacks in Israel, mainly due to Israeli and PA preventive action and sometimes due to cooperation between the two. Security cooperation between the PA security forces and Israel have resulted in the arrest of senior operational activists, the elimination of terror cells, the exposure of ammunition dumps and severe limitation on the freedom of action of activists. At the same time, neighbouring countries – particularly Jordan – have also reined in these elements. The public feeling in the PA-controlled areas was unsympathetic to high-profile terror attacks, which were seen as endangering the peace process, and thus, hindering the establishment of a Palestinian State. Hamas, as a socio-political and religious movement, was often at odds with the PA, and limited itself to ‘dawa’ activity: establishment of a religious-social network and activities meant to persuade the population to join its ranks, and to support and identify with its aims. At the same time, the Hamas attempted to carry out terrorist attacks in Israel and the West Bank, though at a level aimed to prevent a large-scale confrontation with the PA. The level of friction between the PA and the Hamas was kept on a ‘low flame’ in recent years and has not reached open confrontation, particularly because the Hamas fears that such a confrontation would destroy the movement’s standing among the Palestinian population. The Hamas leadership, particularly in the West Bank – as opposed to the more militant leadership abroad – believed that the struggle for Palestinian public opinion regarding the character of the Palestinian State could be postponed until after the establishment of the independent State. In contrast to the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad in Palestine is a marginal organization in Palestinian society. The organization is primarily based on the militant Jihad doctrine expressed by the slogan ‘Jihad Now,’ with no political agenda or social standpoints. The organization has only several hundred members and is based on a relatively small nucleus of operational activists. Its activities are primarily supported by Iran, which finances the organization and trains its activists either in Iran or via the Hizballah in Lebanon. Due to the organization’s dependence on this support, Iran has considerable influence over its activities. Since the organization’s headquarters is located in Damascus, Syria also has the ability to influence and pressurize it to perpetrate or to avoid carrying out terror attacks. In recent years, the organization has operated within these constraints, with no significant success. The PA was far more willing to take a hard line against the Palestinian Jihad activists than against the Hamas, due to the gap in the support which each of the organizations enjoyed among the Palestinian population. The Palestinian Jihad, with the encouragement of its Iranian patrons, is determined to take advantage of the present situation to intensify its activity and increase its influence among the Palestinian populace, but so far it has not reaped significant gains. With the outbreak of rioting in September 2000 and the release of certain Islamist extremist prisoners by the Palestinian Authority, it was to be expected that the fundamentalist organizations would take a more central role in the fighting, putting into practice their expertise in perpetrating terror attacks. The public mood on the street and among the Palestinian security forces was also such that there was more support for the Islamists’ confrontational message, leading them to assume a greater role in the struggle. In actual fact, both organizations have carried out a relatively small number of attacks and have not succeeded in drawing the Palestinian street into an overall battle. Their most conspicuous attacks were those carried out in Jerusalem and Hadera. Both were high-profile attacks intended to cause mass casualties, and in both cases they used remote control devices and bombs activated by suicide attackers as their modus operandi. Epilogue The violent confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians that has been dubbed the ‘al-Aqsa Intifada’ is at present a limited conflict. The level of violence rises and falls as a result of political interests, and is, at the same time, influenced by facts on the ground. The historically complicated circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has lasted for many years, are seeped in hatred and hostility, in spite of the attempt of the Oslo Accords to reach a political dialogue. These passions, always simmering beneath the surface, can bring about an escalation of the armed conflict. The intense political effort expressed by the bilateral meetings at Camp David and the Middle East during the year 2000 was meant to bring an end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This historic attempt brought to the surface the deepest issues of the conflict, such as the historical and religious rights of both sides and the future of sites holy to both the Jewish and Moslem religions. As a result, the dispute was sharpened and the Palestinian side once more fell back on the use of violence as a tool to achieve better conditions than those offered during the political negotiations at Camp David. The Palestinian Authority took advantage of the ‘ambient conditions’ — a patent asymmetric confrontation in urban areas as an instrumental policy tool in the confrontation to determine the borders of the future Palestinian State. The advantages of conducting the struggle in urban areas to create a national ethos of ‘independence gained by armed struggle’ are exploited to the full, in spite of the human misery and the high economic price paid by the Palestinian population. The asymmetric dimension and the image of a ‘Palestinian David and an Israeli Goliath’ supported by sending children to the front-line, is exploited to the utmost for propaganda purposes and for the enlistment of support in the Arab and international communities. The traditional opposition to the political process between Israel and the PA, particularly the fundamentalist terror organizations and Iran which actively supports them, are intent on escalating the conflict and torpedoing the peace process. Therefore, in addition to the escalation potential in this type of confrontation, it can be expected that the fundamentalist opposition will take advantage of the friction points to escalate their own terrorist activity against Israeli targets in the West Bank and inside Israel. However, it must be pointed out that their level of violence is mainly dependent on how much freedom of action the PA is willing to grant them. Alternately, they may be prevented from acting, as has happened in recent years with relative success when the Palestinian and Israeli security forces cooperated. At this stage, the limited confrontation has been maintained due to both sides managing to contain the level of violence. While violence continues, there are covert and open contacts between the sides, assisted by intermediaries, in an attempt to keep the conflict on a low fire. However, in an area as explosive and problematic as the Middle East, one must take into account the possibility of a rapid decline due to exceptional circumstances, such as a large-scale terrorist attack or an attack on holy sites by extremists of either side. Either event could set off a total regional war.
Area A – area under complete Palestinian control. Area B – area under civilian Palestinian control and Israeli security control. Area C – area under complete Israeli control.
|
|