Common sense and proportionality
A rocket fired from the Gaza Strip hit Sderot on Sunday. In all likelihood, it was not Hamas that breached the status quo, as it had no interest in doing so, but rather a rogue radical Palestinian group seeking to set the Israeli Negev ablaze.
But Hamas is still responsible for the attack, because Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh still considers himself the de facto prime minister of the Gaza Strip. Responsibility for any cross-border attack lies with him, even if its perpetrators refuse to accept his authority.
Israel retaliated with force to the attack, and justifiably so. This is an eye-for-an-eye approach that is designed to deter the aggressors and force Hamas to pay more attention to what is going on under its rule. If a random individual was to fire a mortar shell from Kibbutz Nahal Oz into the Gaza Strip, Hamas would hold Israel accountable, and rightly so. This cuts both ways and this equation is well known.
On Sunday, Israel took this a step further and made the overall calculus much more complicated: It unleashed force not seen since Operation Protective Edge in 2014. This response was designed to teach Hamas a lesson as well as to tell Israelis that a new equation has been set when it comes to retaliatory strikes.
This new equation is problematic because it creates an oversimplified approach that will make each retaliation more forceful that the previous one. If this latest show of force is the beginning of a trend rather than a one-off event that was merited by the particular circumstances, then this policy must be formally deliberated by the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet, where ministers would have to vote on a binding directive. Education Minister Naftali Bennett has advocated a similar process to formulate policy on cross-border tunnels.
During Operation Protective Edge, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then-Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon and then-Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz acted responsibly. They demonstrated both caution and wisdom in their handling of the fighting, guided by three underlying premises. The first was that such an operation could at best achieve a long period of calm. The second was that Israel should welcome cease-fires that give it more international legitimacy and that it should use Egypt's help (the successful courting of Egypt was once again on display on Monday when footage showed Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry defending Israel's actions against Palestinian terrorists, in comments that outraged Hamas). The third premise is that if Israel is not going to end Hamas' rule (because that is impossible), it had better exercise caution to spare the lives of Israeli troops.
The combative rhetoric (and the Turkish condemnation) could shake the political status quo and precipitate another military operation that no one wants -- not Israel, not Hamas, not Egypt and not Turkey. Judging from past examples, rhetoric can sometimes spiral out of control. The principle of proportionality should apply when it comes to rockets that explode in Sderot.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו