Karen Tumulty asks "whether the surprise intensity of Israel's retaliation is related to the fact that this country is in the midst of a presidential transition." There's a political logic to Israel's timing. The Bush administration is, for Israel, predictable in their support. Indeed, Secretary Rice responded to the attacks by saying, "The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza." The Obama administration is less predictable. They may not support a massive air campaign that kills 300 Palestinians. Or they might. But it's a chance Israel is better off not taking. They don't want to begin their relationship with Obama by launching massive air strikes against his express objections. Hence the timing. Conducting the strikes in the final days of Bush means you don't have to conduct them in the first days of Obama. That ensures that the conflict will not take place over explicit American opposition, with all the potential diplomatic consequences that would entail. This way, Israel can accomplish its military objectives before Obama enters office. They can even let him help broker a ceasefire and secure an early international accomplishment. The other factor is Israel's domestic politics. Tzipi Livni and her allies in Kadima face a tough election against Benjamin Netanyahu and his more aggressively hawkish coalition. But there's no space to the right of this campaign. Netanyahu cannot pledge to kill 500 Palestinians, rather than Kadima's 300. And electorates tend to prefer the status quo in times of war. The vote is on February 10th.
