Lurking behind the rock

The terror attack at the Karni crossing that left six Israelis dead was followed behind the scenes among Israel's leadership by a heated argument on the manner of response, details of which have been kept, for the most part, from the public at large.

The media repeatedly reported that the prime minister told the Israel Defense Forces that it had free rein to take any action it deemed necessary to protect Israeli communities. At the same time, media reports spoke incessantly of one alternative being a large-scale military operation in the northern Gaza Strip, with the objective of pushing back the Qassam rocket and mortar firers out of range.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led the most extreme position in these discussions. He was evidently very agitated by events in Sderot. He demanded that the IDF deploy artillery to shell targets in the Gaza Strip, including in towns and villages, as long as Hamas continued to launch Qassam rockets or mortars at Israeli communities. He adopted a blatant eye-for-an-eye approach - to pay the Palestinians in kind, but with much more and much deadlier force. He spoke of the need to move large forces into the northern Strip. During the course of the argument, he raised his voice on more than one occasion, and gave the impression that he was rebuking the IDF.

Facing off against him was Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon, backed by Major General Aharon Ze'evi Farkash, director of Military Intelligence. Ya'alon stressed that he would comply with any order he received, but that he was not in favor of "blind shelling" and a large-scale military operation at that stage. A broad ground offensive would clearly cause numerous residents to flee southward, the area of operation would empty, and again there would be a wave of refugees as a result of battles initiated, in fact, by the Palestinians.

Ya'alon said that Israel may eventually have no alternative but to mount a large-scale military operation in the Strip, but that first Mahmoud Abbas had to be given a chance to take action to put an end to the terror. A broad offensive before he kicked off his efforts would be a mistake. The world has to understand that Israel had no choice.

Someone informed Washington of the problem facing Israel. The quiet U.S. response - defending the Israeli communities is the correct way; moving into Gaza is unacceptable - was somewhat contradictory. And what can be drawn from this response with regard to defending by means of Israeli artillery fire?

The interesting thing is that Sharon's suggestion of an extreme response won the support of Shin Bet security service chief Avi Dichter, who went even further. He came armed with more operational proposals that would have created intense shock waves. They would certainly have prejudiced Abu Mazen's chances even before he had started making any efforts. One recalls that when Abu Mazen was prime minister from March to September 2003, Dichter objected to Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz's proposal to transfer control of a number of cities in the West Bank to the Palestinians.

This wasn't the first time that Sharon has touted a far-reaching proposal: In the previous unity government, when Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was defense minister, Sharon was forced to back down from his proposal to deport Yasser Arafat. Opposing this proposal were the heads of the intelligence community. Mofaz, chief of staff at the time, supported Sharon - contrary to the position of the current chief of staff.

We are still in the initial stage of the new move being led by Arafat's successor. Abu Mazen is conducting himself wisely and courageously, and he clearly wants to stop the bloodshed. The deployment of the Palestinian policemen in the northern Strip is something that Arafat never wanted to do, and even impeded others from doing so.

Hamas is trying to maneuver around him. The organization was prepared to stop the Qassam launches, but continue with other terror activities. Israel, for its part, announced that a halt to the terror and violence would be met by operational quiet. The problem is that behind the scenes there is another player, Hezbollah, which could carry out a large, provocative attack so as to mess it all up, even if it were to exact a high price from the Palestinians.