Monday, January 02, 2023
Elder of Ziyon
Islamic Jihad leader Daoud Shehab said such a visit would be a "declaration of war."
Secretary of the Executive Committee of the PLO, Hussein Al-Sheikh, called for a "Palestinian, Arab and international" response.
Hamas said that Ben Gvir was "adding fuel to the fire" and holding Israel responsible for any violence. And there are reports that Hamas sent a message though Egypt to Israel that they would shoot rockets at Ben Gurion Airport if such a visit occurs.
Should Palestinian threats affect Israeli actions?
It is easy to flatly say "no." But if there was a credible threat of a thousand rockets being shot into Israel, is it worth it?
I'm no expert on game theory, but we have a history of threats and violence that can help shed light on what the reality is and what these threats are meant to accomplish.
Nearly every Palestinian threat of violence does not turn into anything. Look at the empty threats of war if the US opened an embassy in Jerusalem as a prime example. Even last March, Hamas threatened violence ahead of the last time Ben Gvir visited the Temple Mount. Nothing happened.
And on the other side of the coin, nearly every case of real Palestinian violence had little to do with reacting to specific Israeli actions, although they would use Israeli actions as an excuse after the fact. The terror spree in 2022 was not preceded by specific threats.
The Second Intifada was supposedly sparked by Ariel Sharon's similar visit to the Temple Mount, but we know now that it was only an excuse - Arafat had planned the intifada beforehand, and the visit provided the pretext to implement the plan. If it wouldn't have happened then, it would have happened a week or month later.
When Hamas tells Egypt to warn Israel and the threat is leaked, that is not a real threat - that is trying to manipulate Israeli public opinion while providing Hamas with deniability when the war does not break out.
In this case, the 2021 Gaza war is instructive. In that case, Hamas gave a very specific warning and threat: Israel must remove its forces from the Temple Mount and Sheikh Jarrah by 6 PM on May 10 or else face a rocket barrage. Indeed, they started shooting rockets right at the deadline. But in that case, just as with the PLO in 2000, Hamas already planned the attack; it knew very well that Israel was not going to accede to their demands. It was a way to blame Israel for a Hamas-initiated war. Hamas wanted the war regardless, it had a specific goal to tie the actions happening in the West Bank with those in Gaza. At any rate, it wasn't a threat meant to change Israeli behavior, it was an excuse for a war they chose to start.
If you define terrorism as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims, Palestinian threats are simply a form of terrorism. Their occasional outbreaks of violence give credibility to the threats, but that actual violence has its own logic divorced from Israeli actions.
If Israel would cave to these threats, however - as some in the Israeli opposition demand - then the threats will have accomplished a great deal. The terrorists would learn that their threats can force Israel to do what they want without them firing a single bullet. That's about as successful a terror attack as is possible.
The armed groups in Gaza and the terror supporters in Ramallah generally don't want war. They would much rather have Europe and the US and the Knesset opposition pressure Israel to do what they want. That's the logic behind the threats.
Perhaps one can argue whether Ben Gvir should visit the holy site to begin with. But once he announced his intent, he must go through with it, because the downside of caving to Arab threats is far, far worse than the minuscule chances that it would spark a new war or a new intifada.
