Israeli forces withdrew from Gaza yesterday after a brutal five-day intervention mounted against a new round of rocket attacks from there on its neighbouring towns and cities, in which three Israelis have died. Hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed or wounded in battles with Hamas militants, with many children dying in indiscriminate attacks on houses and apartments by Israeli helicopters and jets.
However real is the provocation in the recent use of longer-range missiles against the Israeli town of Ashkelon, these retaliatory military actions must be condemned as utterly disproportionate. They have not prevented the rocket attacks, which continued yesterday, and could even herald an Israeli reoccupation of Gaza. That would certainly upend the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks initiated by President Bush, which are highlighted by Dr Condoleezza Rice's visit to Jerusalem this week.
These talks are proceeding on the basis that Hamas can validly be excluded from the negotiations because the movement refuses to renounce violence or recognise Israel's right to exist. Yet Hamas's control of Gaza, which it forcibly seized from Fatah security forces last summer, is a standing reminder that it won the Palestinian elections two years ago and therefore has a political legitimacy to be involved in talks about a final settlement. The movement is strong enough to maintain military and political pressure for such an involvement, knowing that it has the power to subvert the talks.
It has validly been said that Israel cannot make peace with a divided Palestinian nation, bargaining with one side and making war on the other. Whenever Hamas provokes such a response the Fatah side is obliged to suspend talking to the Israelis, as Mr Mahmoud Abbas did yesterday, for fear of popular opinion. In fact there are a number of indications that Hamas is willing to arrange a ceasefire; and a significant opinion poll in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz last week showed that 64 per cent of Israelis would support it. There is a war-weariness on both sides which could be exploited by courageous leadership, but is continually frustrated by the logic of military confrontation. Prime minister Ehud Olmert and Mr Abbas are in an exceptionally weak position politically, making them incapable of taking any such initiatives.
Israel is in danger of being drawn into a fruitless and destructive war like that waged in Lebanon against Hizbullah in July 2006 if this confrontation goes on. It faces a dilemma between completely excluding Hamas or including it on unacceptable terms. As main sponsor of the peace talks, the Bush administration faces a similar choice, since the White House has resolutely refused to relax its rejection of engaging Hamas unless it effectively capitulates. There is no such prospect in store. The alternative is to explore a ceasefire and then see whether it would provide the basis for wider political engagement. European leaders should pursue that course if the US refuses to do so. But all concerned are awaiting new US leadership. Little political progress can be made before then, even if a wider war is avoided.