And Then What?
| Tue Jan. 6, 2009 2:58 PM PST
AND THEN WHAT?....Marc Lynch went to a lecture this morning given by Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor:
It was a profoundly dismaying experience. Because if Ambassador Meridor is taken at his word, then Israel has no strategy in Gaza.
Asked three times by audience members, Meridor simply could not offer any plausible explanation as to how its military campaign in Gaza would achieve its stated goals....As to a political strategy tied to the military campaign, nothing. No guidance as to whether Israel would re-occupy Gaza, or on what terms it would accept a cease-fire. No thoughts as to whether the campaign would cause Hamas to fall from power or help the Palestinian Authority regain political power.
....In short, Meridor quite literally offered no strategy beyond hitting Gaza hard and hoping for the best. "In terms of creating damage we are certainly on the right path," noted the Ambassador. Few would disagree with that assessment, at least. But some might hope that the bloody, battered path might actually be leading somewhere.
To be honest, this seems to be true of most wars these days: hit 'em hard and hope that something shakes loose. But while that may have been a plausible strategy in colonial wars a hundred years ago, it doesn't seem to work so well anymore. I doubt very much that it's going to work for Israel this time around either.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
How do we deal with a situation where a small, motivated group of bad actors is acting with belligerence toward a neighboring state??And that group is careful to be interspersed throughout an urban population of noncombatants??And at least some (but definitely not all) of that population support the group of bad actors due to a history of true and supposed victimization ?..And even the part of the population that does not support the group of bad actors none-the-less feel that they have been victimized?..And the standard tool box used for dealing with these bad actors will only feed the feelings of victimization predictably leading to a more radicalized support (albeit with some reluctance) for the bad actors.
And then there is the nearly mirror image in return. Operating under feelings of victimization and the need for self preservation, a state acts with belligerence toward a neighboring population??.
I think the smartest and most self-honest Israelis know that this cannot end well. The world is changing in a way that is not beneficial for Israel or its patron. If one is only able to make the best deal when one is most powerful, then for Israel that may have been almost a decade or longer ago ? say 1990-2002.
Demographics, economics and changing technology and political alliances have eroded the power of team USA-Israel. The longer from the above date range that Israel waits to strike a deal, the less "perfect" that deal will be for them.
Israel's actions are rooted in the past and cannot serve them well.
But while that may have been a plausible strategy in colonial wars a hundred years ago?
Yes, way back when, they could have treated the Palestinians the way the United States treated our native population, as some insensitive Israelis used to remind us, but it's hard to get away with such behavior nowadays, thankfully.
Jimmy Carter is one hundred percent correct. Apartheid has been implemented over the past few decades, enforced by violence. The people of Gaza have no hope for economic betterment or political freedom under the Israeli thumb.
Submitted by cmac (not verified) on Tue Jan. 6, 2009 2:51 PM PST.
It sure is hard to escape the conclusion that they just want to kill as many 'Hamas' people (where Hamas is loosely defined to be Hamas and anybody who might have voted for them and anybody who's related to anybody who might have voted for them) as possible. Without being willing to articulate it, I think they think they can kill their way to peace.
How do we deal with a situation where a small, motivated group of bad actors is acting with belligerence toward a neighboring state And that group is careful to be interspersed throughout an urban population of noncombatants And at least some (but definitely not all) of that population support the group of bad actors due to a history of true and supposed victimization ..And even the part of the population that does not support the group of bad actors none-the-less feel that they have been victimized ..And the standard tool box used for dealing with these bad actors will only feed the feelings of victimization predictably leading to a more radicalized support (albeit with some reluctance) for the bad actors.
And then there is the nearly mirror image in return. Operating under feelings of victimization and the need for self preservation, a state acts with belligerence toward a neighboring population .
I think the smartest and most self-honest Israelis know that this cannot end well. The world is changing in a way that is not beneficial for Israel or its patron. If one is only able to make the best deal when one is most powerful, then for Israel that may have been almost a decade or longer ago say 1990-2002.
Demographics, economics and changing technology and political alliances have eroded the power of team USA-Israel. The longer from the above date range that Israel waits to strike a deal, the less "perfect" that deal will be for them.
Israel's actions are rooted in the past and cannot serve them well.
Is there a better idea?
The advantage the Hamas had over Israel was one party had something to lose. Israel as a State needed to work in the international community - so that limits what they could do. But what if Israel realize there's nothing to lose? Europe is indifferent to their existence. China and Russia are amoral. There's really no pleasing the Arab League. And Hamas keeps on lobbing rockets.
Here's a question, does Hezbollah still conduct raids into Israel?
But while that may have been a plausible strategy in colonial wars a hundred years ago
Yes, way back when, they could have treated the Palestinians the way the United States treated our native population, as some insensitive Israelis used to remind us, but it's hard to get away with such behavior nowadays, thankfully.
Jimmy Carter is one hundred percent correct. Apartheid has been implemented over the past few decades, enforced by violence. The people of Gaza have no hope for economic betterment or political freedom under the Israeli thumb.
Here's a question, does Hezbollah still conduct raids into Israel?
I've got a question in response to your question -- how does what's happening now preclude that or any other similarly horrible acts in the future? Not much, I'd wager. In fact, it's tough to imagine how this doesn't up the ante.
Here's still another question -- what happens after Israel marches in, racks up a bunch of targeted Hamas kills at the expense of scores/hundreds of civilians, and in the process of doing so increases the popularity among a growing number of Arab populations of what was -- up until this point -- a lackluster Hamas? What happens when an already desperate & hell-bent population is further radicalized? How is Hamas any more politically isolated? How is Israel any safer? How do Israelis view the wisdom of Israeli officials who called for this invasion? How do they view the competence & capability of their military? Shit, I've got all kinds of questions for you if that's the game you want to play. You still really want to pretend Israel has nothing to lose here?
Submitted by Rick B (not verified) on Tue Jan. 6, 2009 4:09 PM PST.
So the Israeli Ambassador provided no strategy for the invasion of Gaza. Why might that be? I mean, besides not having one.
What if this is simply intended to let the Israeli Defense Forces get into Gaza on the ground, then find and kill all of the Hamas leaders there? Such an intention - a military goal - could have a secondary effect of intimidating all the Palestinians of Gaza from being anywhere close to a member of Hamas, essentially shock and Awe. They can also shut down the tunnels that many of the Iranian missiles are being smuggled in through.
I'm not sure I would call that a strategy, but I would not be surprised to find that is the primary purpose of the attack.
Beyond that the attack is also an expression of frustration that nothing else has worked, as well as a demonstration that the government is doing something just before elections. I get the impression that the Israelis consider Hamas more insane and uncontrollable than a pack of rabid dogs. You kill rabid dogs.
If that were the intent, clearly no Israeli Ambassador is going to announce it.
[...] Such an intention- a military goal - could have a secondary effect of intimidating all the Palestinians of Gaza from being anywhere close to a member of Hamas, essentially shock and Awe.
How'd that shock & awe thing work out the first time we heard those words?
...essentially shock and Awe.
Well, the 2003 version sure worked good 'nuff.
...even a shot in the dark strategy at least offers a remote chance of success.
I seriously doubt Israel ends up any worse off.
I seriously doubt that's correct.
I've run into something REALLY important. Ever think the US might have had a hand in the split between Hamas and Fatah? You betcha. When will we learn that things just don't happen as they appear to happen but are often guided and aided by the US. This just blew my mind, absolutely and completely. PLEASE read.
Bush Plan Enables Assault on Gaza, Gareth Porter, Asia Times, 1/06/09
PS: I've read that Israel's withdrawal plan depends on a ceasefire coming eventually. Without a ceasefire, Israel's in big trouble. It's easier to invade than withdraw. All in good time, folks. (!!!!!!!!) The Israeli/US GWOT is insane and unreal.
I think everyone is now coming to the obvious conclusion that this just can't end well. Not Gaza, not Lebanon, not the settlements, none of it.
History has some really stark examples of what happens in tumultuous regions with asymmetric power especially when those on the short end pursue violent resistance. And the Palestinian plight more closely resembles the American Indian struggle than the Zulu.
There just aren't any likely outcomes that anyone rational would consider 'good'.
Well Junebug, if Hezebollah doesn't attack Northern Israel anymore - then the 2006 invasion wasn't a total failure. Do the Lebanese look at Hezebollah and say
If you are describing the Palestinians as "desperate & hell-bent" they really can't get more "radicalized." What can they do? Suicide Bombers at a disco? Suicide Bombers on the Bus? Fire rockets onto civilian populations? Oh wait the Palestinians already do that.
Here's what's going to happen, Hamas and Israel will reach a cease fire in a week or two. Hamas will claim victory. But Hamas will stop their attacks on the Israeli civilians. The Settlements will still expand. And the Arab World will still hate Israel.
Dervin,
The ceasefire will not be one-sided as you imply. Hamas will only agree to a ceasefire that includes opening of the borders of Gaza in return for silencing the rocket attacks. Those were the terms of the 6-month truce. Hamas pretty much followed those terms, rocket fire diminished substantially. Israel did not comply by loosening the border blockades.
This is tragic if true. However, while Olmert is still PM, the Defense Minister is now Barak, who is much cannier and more experienced.
I also agree with Rick B above that the Israeli strategy may not be for public consumption. For example, this invasion is putting tremendous pressure on Egypt, which heretofore has done little to prevent the smuggling of arms, trained fighters, and money into Gaza. If the end result is the destruction of a good chunk of Hamas military infrastructure (weapons, explosives, arms factories) and the killing of a large number of trained fighters and military leaders, and then Egypt acquiesces under pressure to a new border control regime that prevents rearmament, then this will have been a success. (By the way it isn't clear to me that Egypt is unhappy about being "forced" to accept new border controls.)
Finally I agree with Dervin that it's now not so clear that the 2006 Lebanon war was a failure. Hezbollah hasn't raised a finger against Israel since then. And if they don't do anything during the remainder of this heavy attack on their ally Hamas, it will show that the war successfully established a deterrent. This isn't clear yet, because the situation is still unfolding. But so far, it appears to be the case.
"If we accept that doing nothing wasn't working, then even a shot in the dark strategy at least offers a remote chance of success."
Was a 'shot in the dark strategy' of this scope necessary to stop rocket attacks that pre-Gaza war had killed ONE Israeli and damaged a few buildings? I believe that since the invasion the total is now up to 5 Israeli casualities due to Hamas rocket attacks. I understand that the threat of such attacks is frightening to those living in Israeli towns within range, but is ONE death enough to provoke such a BRUTAL attack on Gaza, particularly since Israel didn't uphold its end of the truce, which was agreeing to open the border crossings?
Also, to those of you who have suggested Hamas is somehow 'hiding' in the civilian population, you might be interested to know that Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth, at about 11,500/sq mi, comparable to Delhi or Beijing. Exactly how Hamas could separate itself, other than standing as targets in the empty northern border area between Israel and Gaza, is an interesting question. I'm really surprised that so many of you seem to see this from the US or Israeli POV, accepting all the propaganda points as truth.
Oh thanks nepeta, you have no clue what I thought then, but that doesn't stop you from mind raping me with your projections.
I understand now why you might be so ready to swallow all the propaganda you like to believe in and consider it facts and anyone who disagrees must be a Bush dupe.
(And as it was, no that was Josh Marshall and Matt Yglesias, and I think, perhaps Kevin Drum as well.)
Wait a second, rocket fire diminished substantially is not really keeping up one's end of the bargain. And why would Hamas want to have an open border with a people they think don't have the right to exist?
I'm not asking this as some rhetorical trick, I can't really find the data, but how has the cease fire been working out between Hezbollah and Israel in the North?
It's certainly possible that the Israeli leadership may be primarily concerned about the coming elections and may and lack a coherent strategy. OTOH it's also possible that they simply want to keep their strategy secret from the enemy. That would be pretty normal conduct in any war.
Dervin,
I'm really glad you asked. As far as I can tell there is no document or transcript of the June truce. I spent about an hour trying to find one. However, there are news reports that describe the promises made by each side. Here, from NPR:
"Both Israel and Hamas had strong reasons to embrace the Egypt-brokered truce: Israel's military attacks were unable to stop the near daily rocket fire from Gaza. In agreeing to the truce, Hamas, for its part, acknowledges the enormous strain sanctions have placed on the group and on the 1.5 million people who live in Gaza.
Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, acknowledged those realities, calling the truce a pragmatic move by both sides.
"It's not an optimistic or pessimistic," he says. "You're speaking about a practical agenda: Israelis in urgent need for cease-fire and Palestinians also in urgent need for this cease-fire."
And here, from the Christian Science Monitor, March 13, 2008:
"In a speech at Gaza City's Islamic University, Mr. Haniyeh demanded an end to Israeli military activity in the Gaza Strip, which Hamas seized in June 2007. "We are talking about a mutual comprehensive calm, which means that the enemy must fulfill its obligations," Haniyeh said. "The Israelis must stop the aggression ... including assassinations and invasions, end the sanctions, and open the borders."
As I understand it, Israel did promise that after three days of unbroken truce to 'gradually ease the blockade' and 'gradually' open border crossings with Egypt and the West Bank. Hamas agreed to allow Fatah security to monitor the crossings as well as Egyptian security.
If you don't know why Hamas wanted Gazan border crossings open (NOT BORDERS!) then you haven't been paying attention for the past two years.
""In a speech at Gaza City's Islamic University, Mr. Haniyeh demanded an end to Israeli military activity in the Gaza Strip, which Hamas seized in June 2007."
For an explanation of why Hamas 'seized' the Gaza Strip in 2007, see my link at 7:47 PM. I promise you, it's good reading.
"Oh thanks nepeta, you have no clue what I thought then, but that doesn't stop you from mind raping me with your projections."
I said I could 'imagine' that you were duped. Bad imaginings. Sorry. Although your denial wasn't terribly convincing.
OK, the "why they want the border crossings open" was a rhetorical trick. You know, "Death to the Jews" and all that. The Palestinians are such psychos that Egypt doesn't want them going through their country.
But I was actually asking about the Hezbollah Israel cease fire. In 2006 Isreal went over the top in an effort to rescue two soldiers and by all objective accounts Israel lost that war with Hezbollah. But if the Rocket attacks, military raids and kidnapping of Jews have disappeared in Northern Israel, then it would make sense for Israel to do the exact same thing in dealing with Hamas.
Submitted by s9 (not verified) on Wed Jan. 7, 2009 9:56 AM PST.
The whole situation in Gaza makes a lot more sense when you face up to the fact that basically what's happening is that both sides are Conspiring Against Therapy.
"The longer...that Israel waits to strike a deal, the less "perfect" that deal will be for them."
_______________
Since the stated, unwavering goals of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews in Palestine, the Israelis probably feel that there is no deal to be had, perfect or otherwise.
If the world is changing against the Israelis, then it must be changing in favor of unceasing low intensity warfare against the Jewish state, because certainly no one seems overly troubled by it except the Jews. How can that do anything but radicalize the Jewish state further?
"Also, to those of you who have suggested Hamas is somehow 'hiding' in the civilian population, you might be interested to know that Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth, at about 11,500/sq mi, comparable to Delhi or Beijing."
_________________
Obvious bullshit that only a non-military person would try to sell. Get out a military topographic chart of the area (or even google it) and the amount of empty space in Gaza is still clearly greater than the built up areas.
Militarily, it makes sense for Hamas to mix among civilians. Anything that can complicate Israeli targeting solutions is a plus from Hamas's viewpoint. And trumpeting the death of civilians when Israel does strike is a very useful tool when trying to gain the support of world opinion.
