Jump to content

Gaza Strip


Recommended Posts

Yair, is it true that Israelis are far more democratic in their army, officers called by first names, all a platoon asked their opinion about how to attack/defend. Given the pool of experience, would this approach replace a professional NCO class. The young British army officers I have talked to have all said that after an O group they sat down, told their sergeant about the forthcoming operation and waited for his suggestions what to do.

This is more or less true. I served in a regimental sized unit, commanded by a Full Colonel (Aluf Mishne), and all officers, up to an including him were addressed by their first name. As a regular soldier I would probably err on the side of caution when introduced to a full colonel and call him Sir at first, but that would just be the initial encounter. In general the IDF (especially outside of the Air force which is a bit more formal) is very informal as far as officers-enlisted relations. There is no separate dining room in the army in general (as opposed to the Air Force) and there is little concept of officers deserving special respect just because they are officers. A regular soldier can expect the same freedom to offer his opinion, discuss, argue, etc. as one might expect to in the workplace. At the end of the day I have to do what my boss says, but I don't automatically say "Yes Sir" and go do it. The big difference of course, is that I can't get fired or quit the army, and I can't go to the stockade at work :) Thus, while I wouldn't say that it is SOP to consult the entire platoon about the course of action, it would definitely be considered ok for any soldier in the platoon to offer his opinion, and depending on the people involved, I can definitely see such consultations taking place in many places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wrath of Dagon,

Instead of trying to discredit a source, why not challenge the opinion instead? Generally speaking those who try to discredit and not discuss are broadcasting that either they are arguing from a weak position, aren't good debaters, or really don't know what they are talking about. BTW, that link you posted to is far less than objective. Part of the great movement to shut down debate in favor of dogmatic ignorance.

He was making some pretty serious accusations against Israelis, aside from his point about NCO's, which I don't feel qualified to debate further. My point was he's not necessarily an objective source for those accusations, at least as far as taking his word alone as evidence.

Now, to turn your question on its head and put it back to you... do you think this sort of military action the Israelis are engaged in is likely to succeed? Define success while you're at it. If you don't think it will succeed, what do you think will?

There are degrees of success that are possible. The minimum would be to return to a ceasefire and get an international force on the Egypt/Gaza border to destroy the smuggling tunnels. As far as what I think will happen, I'm not in the business of predicting the future, wait and see.

Wrong. Palestinians were suffering because of Hamas and (more recently) a full economic embargo imposed by the Israelis. Now they are suffering because of Hamas, the embargo, and Israeli military actions. People on the West Bank are arguably better off mostly because the lack of israeli military action, not because Fatah is substantially better at governing than Hamas.

Steve

Certainly Fatah is better at governing, that should be self evident by now. My point was though that the reason West Bank is better off is because their government is not currently attacking Israel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrath of Dragon,

He was making some pretty serious accusations against Israelis, aside from his point about NCO's, which I don't feel qualified to debate further. My point was he's not necessarily an objective source for those accusations, at least as far as taking his word alone as evidence.

Well, he's credible in the sense that he is who he says he is (i.e. not a random Internet poster) and someone thinks he knows enough to be paid for having opinions. Some of the things he states are accounts of things he has seen in the first person, others are things are opinions based on his experience. I think you need to be careful which things you dismiss and why. I've certainly seen far worse things said about IDF behavior, some of which you can research by going to various Human Rights groups. Therefore, on the face of it I'd say that his observations should be taken at face value since I see no reason to doubt their authenticity. The opinions, on the other hand, can be challenged in the usual informed way as we have been debating his opinion of Israel's need of a professional NCO cast.

There are degrees of success that are possible. The minimum would be to return to a ceasefire and get an international force on the Egypt/Gaza border to destroy the smuggling tunnels. As far as what I think will happen, I'm not in the business of predicting the future, wait and see.

True, there are degrees of success. This is what Olmert tried to convince people of after the 2006 Lebanon campaign. It would appear that the "bait and switch" objectives will once again come into play with the current Gaza action. Specifically, at the outset the objectives were stated as stopping the rocket attacks and disarming those responsible. I don't see those being obtainable, therefore by the original defined victory conditions this is likely to be considered another defeat. At least that's my prediction ;) Minor tactical successes for the loss of life sustained, and solidifying of opposition to peace, are not really successes in my opinion.

Certainly Fatah is better at governing, that should be self evident by now. My point was though that the reason West Bank is better off is because their government is not currently attacking Israel.

On the surface this is true. However, the counter argument is that if Israel didn't immediately isolate Hamas and basically declare economic and political war on it perhaps things would have turned out differently. For example, Hamas might have fallen from grace because they are even more inept than Fatah. As the English saying goes, give them enough rope to hang themselves with. And if not, then perhaps despite Israel's best intentions Hamas might have attacked Israel anyway. In that case Hamas would have done so without a shred of international sympathy, and perhaps even disdain from the people of Gaza. But Israel's heavy handed non-military actions against Hamas made either of these two possibilities impossible and a military conflict highly predictable.

Now, I'm not saying it would have turned out differently if Israel had shown some degree of tolerance towards Hamas, only that this current conflict might have been avoided and/or been more favorable to Israel. Unfortunately, neither side seems capable of trying something different other than confrontation. As I said earlier, I'd like to see someone demonstrate how that will get Israel the peace it claims it is after.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ali,

Why does Yaalon's quote make it fact? Why does his opinion mean that this is what's behind the current operation? Moshe Yaalon, aka Boogy, is now a member of the right wing Likkud Party. He is in opposition to the current government and spares no chance to criticise it. He can be heard monthly advocating this attack or that one, on Gaza, on Iran, on Lebanon. Heck, if he had it his way, israel would be attacking egypt for allowing weapons to be smuggled into Gaza. Quoting an editorial by Rashid Khalidi is hardly the basis for fact on this conflict. It would be akin to quoting Benjamin Netanyahu (or worse). For the record, I heard this Yaalon quote in Hebrew directly from the horse's mouth (ass's in his case) on the news. He said that the Army should burn into their consciousness that they cannot beat israel. A stupid thing to say, but not quite the same as "they are a defeated people".

I am in touch with many people in Israel, including my family, who, Thank God, don't live far enough south to be in (current) range of the rockets. They, almost to a man, support the operation. Why is this, I ask myself. Do they not care about Palestinians at all? That is not the case. Mostly, my friends, like me when I lived there, voted for Meretz, a quite left-wing party that supports a full Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. But people in Israel are baffled by the fact that Hammas have been firing rockets for 8 years. They don't want to hear about "disproportionate responses" and comparing israeli dead to Palestinian dead (which as I said before, is morally wrong and irrelevant). They say that if other western countries were being fired at by their neighbours, then they would do the same or worse.

Rightly or wrongly, mainstream Israeli perception is that they evacuated the Gaza strip and let the Palestinians rule themselves, only to get a Hammas government which calls for the destruction of Israel and and fires rockets and mortars for 8 years. I know it isn't that simple. I know that as soon as Hammas was elected Israel blockaded the strip and ensured that Hammas would be isolated internationally. I don't know what Israel should have done otherwise in the face of a government that publicly says it wants it destroyed, but I know that what it did isn't good.

I would like to ask you though, what you think Israel should have done after leaving the Gaza strip and Hammas' election, that would have resulted in a different situation. I would like to know what you think Israel should do now instead of this operation. I ask this sincerely, because I don't know myself. I know that what it is doing now is wrong, but I am at a loss to offer a better solution.

Yair,

I do appreciate your sincerity and your effort to be objective depsite being on the one side of the fence and your people at war. I admit I've never been in your position and I dont know if I would be able to handle it like you. Last night I saw Ari Folman's "Waltz with Bashir", which is a fine piece of art btw, and I appreciated the tone of self criticism in the story. It also enlightened me about the confusion Israel faces and you talk about. Btw, Folman, a former IDF soldier who fought in the 82 Lebanon war, spoke against the current offensive if I'm not mistaken.

About the article, you know, when I first wrote "facts" I thought of editing my post to "thoughts" but when rereading the article, I asked myself, which of these points about Gaza strip is not true? Most of the info in it appears accurate and valid to me. Maybe the last line about Yaloon's quote is more of an opinion but you have to understand that Israel to the rest of the world looks really like it has decided to finish off the palestinians for good with this fierce offensive.

As to what I would suggest for an alternative action, I don't know really but I think the strict blockade was a wrong move to start with. As Steve said above, Israel is the more powerful state, has the upper hand in the situation and the flexibility to offer more than the "might is right" solution. It once again picked the military way that proved so effective in the past but now seems out of place in this asymmetrical era and makes Israel look as bad as ever. Palestinians have far fewer alternatives and are in a desperate situation. Those people need some breathing space. Being constantly with the back on the wall just leads to more desperate violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, not using the "short victorious war" option when the voters want something to be done would just mean losing the elections in February. In which case a new, more right-leaning government would attack perhaps with even greater damage. So Olmert's hand is forced both by Hamas and his own people.

Ah, the joys of representative democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, not using the "short victorious war" option when the voters want something to be done would just mean losing the elections in February. In which case a new, more right-leaning government would attack perhaps with even greater damage. So Olmert's hand is forced both by Hamas and his own people.

Ah, the joys of representative democracy.

"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."

Robert Lynd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrath of Dragon,

Well, he's credible in the sense that he is who he says he is (i.e. not a random Internet poster) and someone thinks he knows enough to be paid for having opinions. Some of the things he states are accounts of things he has seen in the first person, others are things are opinions based on his experience. I think you need to be careful which things you dismiss and why. I've certainly seen far worse things said about IDF behavior, some of which you can research by going to various Human Rights groups. Therefore, on the face of it I'd say that his observations should be taken at face value since I see no reason to doubt their authenticity. The opinions, on the other hand, can be challenged in the usual informed way as we have been debating his opinion of Israel's need of a professional NCO cast.

His posts and articles in general are hostile to Israel, so I will not accept just his word as evidence.

For example, Hamas might have fallen from grace because they are even more inept than Fatah. As the English saying goes, give them enough rope to hang themselves with.

You can't fall from grace so long as you got all the guns, and willingness to use them. You're thinking too much in American political terms.
And if not, then perhaps despite Israel's best intentions Hamas might have attacked Israel anyway. In that case Hamas would have done so without a shred of international sympathy, and perhaps even disdain from the people of Gaza.
Right, the people who celebrated whenever Israeli children were blown up by suicide bombers. And they'd get all the sympathy back as soon as the first civilian casualties occurred, just read your own forum. Anyway, the blockade is just a pretext. Humanitarian aid can still go through, and all Hamas has to do to lift it is accept Israel's right to exist and give up terrorism. It's not just Israel that embargoed Hamas, but all Western nations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yari,

I also appreciate you taking the time to discuss these things with us as someone with a direct vested interest in what's going on in Gaza today. You also remind me of my first serious girlfriend who I met in school while she was living in the US (her father was working locally). Ah... good memories :) Anyway, she went back to Israel to do her military duty so that she could keep her Israeli citizenship (she had, or at least now has, dual citizenship). It was fun while it lasted :D

She came back a couple of years later after spending much of the time pulling guard duty on a Kibbutz. Some sort of flair up happened right after she came back and Israel was doing what Israel generally does... reacts with poorly aimed military operations that got a lot of civilians killed and didn't do squat to further Israel's security. I remember going out to dinner with her (first time seeing her) just after she returned and I was afraid to make any comment about it because I was thought then as I do now... it was a bad idea. To my surprise she started up a conversation about it and that is when I found out that (according to her) a large number of Israelis had the same opinion that I did and yet felt helpless because their voices were not allowed to be heard. I was surprised and fascinated by it. She now lives here in the US full time with a family. I guess she figured it wasn't going to get any better.

Wrath of Dragon,

His posts and articles in general are hostile to Israel, so I will not accept just his word as evidence.

No, he is critical of Israel. That is very different than being hostile. And rejecting someone's statements because you don't like them does not reflect well upon your ability to reason.

I've been EXTREMELY critical of my own government for a wide range of things, including (of course) the war in Iraq. I was critical before and even was called a "traitor" for daring to point out that in 2004 the war wasn't going well and that even Bush had openly admitted we had no justification for waging war against Iraq (i.e. the pretext was based on bad information). Yet now my point of view is the one held by the vast majority of Americans, even those who would have shouted me down in 2004. Was I hostile to America? No, I was critical of its actions. Was I unpatriotic? No, I was far more patriotic than the blind followers who tried to shove our flag up my arse for having an opinion. History will no doubt favor my point of view and not the reactionary right's blind defense of failed and flawed policies.

So again, I caution you to not paint yourself into a reactionary corner. Past history here shows that it never comes out well for such posters.

You can't fall from grace so long as you got all the guns, and willingness to use them. You're thinking too much in American political terms.

No, I'm thinking in practical terms. Bombing Hamas and killing hundreds of women and children empowers Israel's enemies, not weakens them. If instead Israel had allowed Hamas to demonstrate, on their own, that they were completely incapable of governing the people of Gaza then they would have (eventually) fallen out of favor with the people. That is not the same as saying Hamas would have automatically fallen without bloodshed. It probably would not. But it's certainly not falling now and the blood is on Israel's hands instead of Hamas' in the view of the Palestinians.

Right, the people who celebrated whenever Israeli children were blown up by suicide bombers. And they'd get all the sympathy back as soon as the first civilian casualties occurred, just read your own forum.

Yeah, people are upset that Israel suffered 3 dead due to terrorism and has now killed almost 200 times as many innocent civilians and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to a people that are already living off foreign money. Yet Israel is claiming that they aren't doing anything morally wrong, despite it being LITERALLY hundreds of times worse than what Hamas has done. Go figure.

Anyway, the blockade is just a pretext. Humanitarian aid can still go through, and all Hamas has to do to lift it is accept Israel's right to exist and give up terrorism. It's not just Israel that embargoed Hamas, but all Western nations.

The west does share some of the blame, for sure, but Israel was the one that went far further and actually enforced it. In the eyes of the Palestinians, and they are the real people that matter in this whole thing, it was Israel being heavy handed. Bombing them back into the stone age is only reinforcing that feeling, which means that Israel is likely to come out of this with a worse problem on its hands.

Again, Wrath of Dragon, I ask you... do you think this military action will solve the problems that the Israeli government said it would solve? If so, please back up your opinion by providing similar examples (especially in the Middle East) to give your claim some credibility. If you can not do this then you either admit that the current action by Israel is counter productive OR you admit that you don't know enough to be having this discussion in the first place.

I'm not trying to be offensive to you here... just pointing out that you need to make your position better known as others have. Otherwise whatever position it is you're taking will not have any context, and without context whatever you say can't be taken very seriously. So what is your opinion?

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to add a point about the apparent unquestioning and blind support of the US state for Israel in these situations. One phone call from the US telling Israel to stop the bombing and it would stop. And yet when the UN tried to get a vote calling for a ceasefire the US abstained. Being a friend and ally to a country shouldn't mean just rubber-stamping everything they do.

P.S. - Everyone in the Arab world knows this also, which only adds to the low-esteem in which the US is held by Arabs and Muslims in general. From a purely self-interest point of view, this is not good for US national security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will point out that all Hezbollah has done this round is employ a lot of harsh language and swear to fight to the last Gazan. I am firmly in the camp that Israel's execution, and perhaps strategy, stunk in 2006. However Nasrallah seems to have ZERO appetite for another round. It is a significant issue in this whole mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

You asked about what military action had achieved for Israel, and asked for examples.

Egypt fought and lost four short wars with Israel (1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973) as well as the long 1960's so-called war of attrition. Israel's military response allowed Egypt to concluded that seeking to destroy Israel was not in its best interests and Egypt entered into an arrangement where it recognised Israel (hence its right to exist) and settled for peace in exchange for the return of the Sinai.

Jordan fought and lost two wars against Israel. As a consequence of Israel's previous military actions Jordan wisely decided not to join in the action in 1973, even when it initially appeared that the Arabs had the upper-hand. It now recognises Israel and a "cold-peace" exists.

Syria fought and lost four wars against Israel. As a consequence of Israeli military actions it concluded that direct military confrontation was not in its best interests despite arguably significant justification from a military perspective - e.g. the Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1982 and the significant Syrian military losses, and also considering the recent Israeli attack on its N. Korea joint venture military plant in 2008. As a consequence of Israeli military actions Syria does not see that it is in its interest to seek military confrontation with Israel. A "cold-war" now exists.

Hizbullah appears to have decided that - despite its claims of solidarity with Hamas, it will not resort to a military response to Israel in the current circumstances and was at pains to distance itself from the recent missile attacks. Even those who score its confrontation with Israel in 2006 as a victory agree that its reluctance to become involved is due in large part to the ferocity of the Israeli response in 2006 and its concern not to repeat that experience at this stage.

The above are example of what can be achieved by Israel by forceful military action. In some cases peace (Egypt, Jordan) in other cases a tense and cold armed truce with the potential for war at any time (Syria and Hizbullah).

No one should honestly expect a peaceful solution in relation to Hamas. Hamas wants a one-state solution, not a two state solution. Its charter calls for the removal of the state of Israel, return of refugees to their pre-1948 homes and the new nation ruled under Islamic law. In that context there can never be true peaceful relations. There can only be a set of circumstances where it, like the other Arab players referred to above, conclude that military action against Israel is not in its best interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of Israel's significant victories were achieved some decades ago when war was still largely conventional. Asymmetrical threats are much harder to deal now as the war in Lebanon showed. And despite the damage inflicted, still the outcome came as a shock to Israel. I believe the current aggression shown by IDF is partly due to their hurt ego from the clash with Hizbullah two years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ali-Baba

The point I was making was to address Steve's query about anyone providing examples of what benefits military action has achieved for Israel. I believe that this is the lesson that the Israeli establishment derives from its "transactions" with hostile entities.

Israel has not achieved a comprehensive and universal peace with Syria, Hizbullah or Hamas - but them neither of those parties accepts Israel's right to exist, hence it is somewhat more difficult to achieve anything other than an armed truce. Each day without an armed exchange with any of those parties is a positive.

You are correct that asymetric threats are harder to deal with, but even here, the lessons for Israel seem to indicate that the harder line stances are preferable. The intrusive much-maligned "wall" has indeed dramitically reduced the incidence and level of casualties from suicide bombers.

Israel was surprised and greatly disappointed with the performance of the IDF during the 2006 Lebanon incident. Nothwithstanding Hizbullah's self-promotion about an outstanding victory at that time, it does not seem to wish to repeat that wonderful "2006" victory - I wonder why?

Your comments about IDF "hurt-ego" is consistent with your commentary in this thread. The simple fact is that a modern economy and democratic society simply cannot function with nearly 500,000 people having to move in and out of bomb-shelters on a continuous ongoing basis. The people and leaders in Gaza can simply look to the West Bank to see what life can be like where there is mutual recognition of each other's regimes and where rockets are not fired into Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I don't imply that IDF action is purely driven by revenge instincts. I said that partly the boldness of the attack is due to their desire to restore the image of the invicible army. Not the reason of the attack itself of course as I didn't say anything like that.

About the difference with the West Bank, well one look at the map is enough to highlight the strategic and economic importance of the Gaza strip, the whole area being a big port, an important link with the meditarranean and the rest of the world. Israel never really allowed this link to the palestinians, controlling literally every drop of water entering or leaving the strip even after the 2005 pull out. So, it's not that simple as "taking a look at the West Bank". Why doesnt Israel take a look at the West Bank too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to add a point about the apparent unquestioning and blind support of the US state for Israel in these situations. One phone call from the US telling Israel to stop the bombing and it would stop. And yet when the UN tried to get a vote calling for a ceasefire the US abstained. Being a friend and ally to a country shouldn't mean just rubber-stamping everything they do.

P.S. - Everyone in the Arab world knows this also, which only adds to the low-esteem in which the US is held by Arabs and Muslims in general. From a purely self-interest point of view, this is not good for US national security.

Not just in the Arab world, you bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yair,

I do appreciate your sincerity and your effort to be objective depsite being on the one side of the fence and your people at war. I admit I've never been in your position and I dont know if I would be able to handle it like you. Last night I saw Ari Folman's "Waltz with Bashir", which is a fine piece of art btw, and I appreciated the tone of self criticism in the story. It also enlightened me about the confusion Israel faces and you talk about. Btw, Folman, a former IDF soldier who fought in the 82 Lebanon war, spoke against the current offensive if I'm not mistaken.

About the article, you know, when I first wrote "facts" I thought of editing my post to "thoughts" but when rereading the article, I asked myself, which of these points about Gaza strip is not true? Most of the info in it appears accurate and valid to me. Maybe the last line about Yaloon's quote is more of an opinion but you have to understand that Israel to the rest of the world looks really like it has decided to finish off the palestinians for good with this fierce offensive.

As to what I would suggest for an alternative action, I don't know really but I think the strict blockade was a wrong move to start with. As Steve said above, Israel is the more powerful state, has the upper hand in the situation and the flexibility to offer more than the "might is right" solution. It once again picked the military way that proved so effective in the past but now seems out of place in this asymmetrical era and makes Israel look as bad as ever. Palestinians have far fewer alternatives and are in a desperate situation. Those people need some breathing space. Being constantly with the back on the wall just leads to more desperate violence.

Ali, Thanks for your kind words. I actually don't think of myself as being objective, but rather I am on Israel's side, and I think what it is doing now is wrong for Israel. This would probably surprise you, but there are many people who think the same as I do and as Ari Fulman does, far more than is apparent. Not all Israeli press is gung-ho and pro the operation. The Haaretz newspaper, which is the main broadsheet, has two reporters who regularly cover issues from the Palestinian side, one of whom, Amira Hess (she is Jewish, not Arab), actually lives in the occupied territories with the Palestinians who's lives she covers.

You'll find that the usual pattern is overwhelming support at first for military operations, a gut reaction really, which quickly turns into a more examining and critical view. One of the reasons that the IDF isn't happy to send reservists into the actual meat of the operation (besides the sensitivity to their casualties), is that they bring back the "news" unfiltered, and unlike their younger 18-21 y.o. comrades, actually are generally more mature and able to see things in a different, more balanced, light. Already there are louder and louder voices in Israel calling for the operation to be brought to an end, and I don't expect it to last much longer. Hopefully, my expectation is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yari,

She came back a couple of years later after spending much of the time pulling guard duty on a Kibbutz. Some sort of flair up happened right after she came back and Israel was doing what Israel generally does... reacts with poorly aimed military operations that got a lot of civilians killed and didn't do squat to further Israel's security. I remember going out to dinner with her (first time seeing her) just after she returned and I was afraid to make any comment about it because I was thought then as I do now... it was a bad idea. To my surprise she started up a conversation about it and that is when I found out that (according to her) a large number of Israelis had the same opinion that I did and yet felt helpless because their voices were not allowed to be heard.

Thanks Steve. I'd just like to make one correction to this. There are many Israelis who think the same as I do (and as she did/does). Their voices are many times not heard, but it is not because they were not allowed to be heard. Israel proper (not the occupied territories), is a democratic country and allows freedom of speech. I have never heard of any case where someone was punished because of what he said, except for some cases where people were charged for inciting violence. I myself, when living there, felt absolutely free to voice my opinion. I remember being in reserve duty in the Gaza Strip in 2001 and having lively political debates. Even in the regular army people feel free to discuss the politics of what the army does. There is a lot of internal debate and criticism in Israel that is not seen in the western media, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markh and Ali,

There seems to be a view that the West Bank is a paradise of peace and Palestinian freedom. This is not the case. I know the west bank very well, having served there many times. Palestinian cities were hammered by the IDF in 2003 in the "Defensive Shield" (Homat Magen) operation which virtually destroyed the Palestinian security forces and began Arafat's siege in the Muquata in Ramallah. They subsequently lost their appetite for a fight and currently are back to living a relatively peaceful and relatively prosperous life under occupation. However, their land is riddled still with hundreds of settlements and their movement is controlled by tens if not hundreds of road-blocks. And instead of Israel leveraging this peace to give them a state, they are getting nothing but a fairly good life with no political rights. This has been the formula Israel has offered the Palestinians since 1967. People who think that Israel mistreats the Palestinians out of racism are wrong. Under the Israeli occupation they have become the best educated people in the Arab world, with the lowest infant mortality, best health care, and apart from oil-rich saudi and kuwait and their likes, the best standard of living. Only one little thing was missing and that is their national right to be free people. This burst in 1987 in the first Intifadah and has been on and off since then. I suspect that after this operation, the people of Gaza will also lose their will for a fight for a while, a few years even. Conditions there might very well improve, and people in Israeli leadership will once again delude themselves that the Palestinians are accepting the "deal" that is on offer. This is the real tragedy of the situation. That the only advances the Palestinians were ever able to make came through violence, and unfortunately, I don't see the political will in Israel for this to change.

I will now stop my chain posting, at least for today :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrocles,

Ah, but your first mistake is thinking that Fox News is representational of US media in general :D "Fair and balanced" is their motto, but that's as far as it goes. It's no secret that Fox is extremely right leaning and pro-Israel. By "no secret" I mean Rupert Murdoch saying that's his point of view and he makes sure the entire Fox establishment reflects it. An interesting documentary about this is "Out Foxed" which is mostly interviews from Fox execs who were thrown out or marginalized for trying to be "fair and balanced". Not to say Fox doesn't do some excellent reporting, because they do, just saying that they are not reflective of the media as a whole. Generally speaking the media in the US is covering the death and destruction in Gaza and not so much the effects the rockets are having in Israel. Which makes sense because the battle is in Gaza, not in Israel.

Steve

Fair point, sir!

I need to start by reading the WP article linked above by PSY that claims the Israeli media is ignoring the Palestinian civilian plight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dan/california,

I will point out that all Hezbollah has done this round is employ a lot of harsh language and swear to fight to the last Gazan. I am firmly in the camp that Israel's execution, and perhaps strategy, stunk in 2006. However Nasrallah seems to have ZERO appetite for another round. It is a significant issue in this whole mess.

I don't think so. Hezbollah is not provoking a response from Israel for the same reason Syria isn't... it's not in their best self interests because they have NOTHING to gain by another military conflict with Israel. They got what they needed in 2006, so rhetoric and knowing that Israel is likely to come out weaker because of this, is good enough for them. Why fight battles when someone else is doing it for you?

To me this is more evidence that Hezbollah has some very smart people in control of a very tightly organized movement.

markh,

The point I was making was to address Steve's query about anyone providing examples of what benefits military action has achieved for Israel. I believe that this is the lesson that the Israeli establishment derives from its "transactions" with hostile entities.

You did a nice job describing Israel's past success against conventional military forces where territory was not at the heart of the wars in question. The ones you listed were of a different breed and I do not think are relevant. You might as well list every war in history where one side clearly won a decisive victory.

No, I was asking about military action within similar context to what Israel is going through now in Gaza. In fact, I didn't limit my request for military actions which Israel was involved in. Note my question again:

If so, please back up your opinion by providing similar examples (especially in the Middle East) to give your claim some credibility.

I'll clarify my question again... what nations have achieved success over a hostile, foreign civilian population using military force, economic oppression, collective punishment, and other acts of hostility? I can think of a couple that have managed to quiet things down temporarily, at massive Human cost (read murder, plunder, and terror), but nobody that's destroyed the will of the civilians to resent and then become happy neighbors and/or partners. There are few examples of this working even short term, not to mention long term.

The two "success" stories that people try to point to are Germany and Japan after WW2, but they are anomalies in so many ways that it is highly dangerous to use them as blanket examples. It should also be pointed out that the occupiers were extremely benevolent and friendly, not oppressive. Therefore, they are, generally speaking, examples of what Israel should be doing instead of what it has been doing.

So I'll come back around and ask... what good do you possibly think this action against Hamas will do for Israel? In other words, why should the people who ordered the attack on Gaza think that they are really furthering the interests of Israel and Israelis?

The people and leaders in Gaza can simply look to the West Bank to see what life can be like where there is mutual recognition of each other's regimes and where rockets are not fired into Israel.

This is a pipe dream. Again, what evidence do you have to support the notion that Palestinians will come out of this in opposition to Hamas? The most likely scenario is that they will look at the West Bank and say the reason it's in better shape is because they were cowards and didn't stand up to Israel. Hate against Israel is the most likely result of this. The 600 dead civilians have tens of thousands of relations that will hold Israel responsible for their deaths. Because, ultimately, Israel is in actual fact responsible since they directly caused their deaths.

Yair,

Thanks Steve. I'd just like to make one correction to this. There are many Israelis who think the same as I do (and as she did/does). Their voices are many times not heard, but it is not because they were not allowed to be heard. Israel proper (not the occupied territories), is a democratic country and allows freedom of speech. I have never heard of any case where someone was punished because of what he said, except for some cases where people were charged for inciting violence. I myself, when living there, felt absolutely free to voice my opinion. I remember being in reserve duty in the Gaza Strip in 2001 and having lively political debates. Even in the regular army people feel free to discuss the politics of what the army does. There is a lot of internal debate and criticism in Israel that is not seen in the western media, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Ah! Sorry, I did not mean to imply that such voices are squashed through censorship or other forms of government and non government actions (though I have heard about specific examples here and there, but that is normal even in a democracy). No, what I meant is that the voices are not reflected in the government's overall direction of policy. Meaning, when the government is faced with a crisis it continually returns to the failed policies of aggression in the past. Fences, blockades, military strikes, and now full scale invasion. The voices for finding a new way, therefore, are either not being heard or are not as influential as they probably should be based on their numbers. Of course, the other possibility is that the number of Israelis who really want peace (i.e. are willing to do what it takes to have peace) is much smaller than those who do not want peace. Personally, I doubt this is the case so I state again that it appears that Israel's government, though democratically elected, is not representative of the population as a whole.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve

I understand your points - but I suggest that there can be two ways of looking at the same facts.

I think that the pragramatic amongst the Israeli establishment are not looking for an outbreak of mutual respect and compassion between them and their Arab neighbours either now or in the near future. Isrealis know that they exist in the area under collective Arab sufferance and because of their relative military capabilities only. The issue of whether a significant group of Palestinian Arabs "hate" Israel is essentially a given (they view Israel, including within its pre 1948 borders, as an illegitimate "Western" invention, and they dream of replacing Israel with an Islamic State). The issue of whether Israel is liked or hated as a general principle is currently less relevant than the more immediate question of stopping the attacks on Israel.

I imagine that Israel would hope for a variety of desirable goals in relation to co-existence with their neighbours - but no nation can live on an ongoing basis with continuing attacks on its citizens. By this I mean daily or weekly, attacks. Israel appears to have learned to live with, accept and prepare for the concept of hostile truces broken by extermely violent confrontations such as the 2006 war in Lebanon.

After the 1967 war Israel was subject to a war of attrition not just by Arab regular forces but also by Palestinian irregular forces (the current Fatah) located and operating from foreign soil (particularly Jordan). Israel responded with military force, including cross-border raids in sovereign Jordanian territory. Four decades later, that nation is typically not used as a base for such cross-border military attacks on Israel. The military solution obtained positive results.

During the late 1970s, Fatah operated out of Lebanon and conducted cross-border attacks against Israel. Israel responded with the 1982 invasion which ended in the essential removal of Fatah infrastructure from Lebanon and an end to attacks on Israeli soil for a period of time. Unfortunately for Israel, it also caused the formation of Israel's next enemy - Hizbullah, but the most immediate issue being the then (1970s - 1980s) continuous attacks on Israeli soil ceased.

On the topic of Hizbullah, we all recall the 2006 confrontation. A poor military result for Israel - but the Hizbullah rockets stopped and have not started up in sympathy with Hamas in the current crises. In fact Hizbullah was at great pains to ensure that Isreal understood that the recent attacks from Lebanon were not its actions. Argaubly the Israeli military response in 2006, irrespective of its technical merits, has purchased a continuing temporary ongoing truce - one which may end at any time, but is currently holding, which is the most that Israel can hope to expect from a group that denies its right to exist.

In the 10 years to 2006, over 800 Israelis died as a result of terrorist attacks - typically suicide bombings. Israel responded militarily in places like Jenin, and Israel built the much maligned "wall". The Israeli response has resulted in a significantly improved situation as compared with the prior period when it was not taking any decisive action and largely relying on negotiations with the PA, and hoping that the "better angels" of amongst the Palestinians somehow brought the bombers under some type of control.

In all these cases, the military response obtained a favourable outcome - but not the "ideal" outcome of a guaranteed peace. The fact is that a guarantted peace is simply not achieveable until both sides recognise the rights of the other side to (firstly) exist and (secondly) to be the legitimate representatives of their people. We are a long way from that - so currently there is only a military solution to bring about all that can be hoped for, an armed truce.

That is what I would offer as support for my proposition.

Since you have been requesting evidence to support certain propositions, please allow me to ask you to point out what historic evidence you have to support your proposition that restraint will result in a better outcome? When has appeasement to violence in the middle east by States and non-State entities resulted in a better outcomes. I confine the evidence to the middle east due to peculiar cultural and social issues that influence the players in this matter.

Your comments about post-WW2 Germany and Japan seem strange. The main reason for the peace obtained was not because of benelovent or friendly occupiers - it was that the will of the Germans and Japanese to fight was utterly destroyed in the context of obvious military defeat, 24/7 bombing of Germany by the US and UK which resuled in over 500,000 German dead and the creation of an urban/ industrial wasteland in Germany. Incidentially, this was more indiscriminate bombing than what is currently occuring in Gaza - remember Dresden? There were obviously similar actions in Japan - including two nuclear strikes. I am not sure whether you would also classify this as murder, plunder and terror?

I guess it boils down to the fact that it takes two sides to make actual peace. But, in the absence of such goodwill, one side may make ongoing confrontation so unpalatable and costly that the other side simply stops fighting (which seems to be the middle east experience). Regretablly, as with all war, there tends to be death and destruction and it is rarely the decision makers who are the victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markh,

Again, I come back to what are Israel's main goals? Going from one crisis to another for the rest of eternity? All of the "successes" you listed were the result of an earlier failure, which bought a temporary ceasefire (of one sort or another) and then another cycle of retaliation due to Israeli mishandling of the respite the previous military action achieved. As the old saying goes... war is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. So if Israel's ultimate goal is to live in peace, I don't see how it is possible to conclude that maintaining overt hostility with "failed states" along its borders will give them what they want.

Your answer to this is for Israel to simply keep the cycle going until the other side decides to come to its senses and stop. What if that doesn't happen? Or what if Israelis don't want to wait another 40 or 50 years for it to come about? Why is it that Israel is content to hand over its entire foreign and domestic agenda to the whims of fanatical minorities on both sides of the border? By that I mean every time some minority group attacks them they respond with overwhelming military force to placate and justify a domestic minority (i.e. "hawks"). Not only do they kill a lot of the people they one day hope to leave peacefully with, but they also destroy a lot of property and in general terrorize the very people they want to eventually make peace with. What hope is Israel giving these people during the military actions? What hope does it give them inbetween military actions?

Nobody is talking about appeasement. Appeasing terrorists only empowers them. So do attacks like the one in Lebanon and now in Gaza. Which means if you are an outcome based thinker, blowing up Gaza is no better than letting them run amok since neither one is likely to result in a long term peace.

What examples do I have that show restraint is better than an endless cycle of military actions? Unfortunately, there aren't many because the nations who tend to be in conflict tend to use violence until they are compelled to stop for one reason or another. Even massive slaughters, like Tibet for example, aren't but temporary victories for the larger force. In other cases the force gives up and walks away from the mess until it has to come back to it because it's still a problem (like Somalia). But there are examples to be had where benevolence wins where persecution would not have.

South Africa has a rather large mountain of problems on its hands, however the first thing the ANC did when it got into power was NOT go around trying to wipe out their former enslavers. In fact, they went so far as to pardon them provided they spoke about their wrongdoing. This took an amazing amount of restraint and the results are, I think, far favorable than they would have been if they went the way of Zimbabwe.

Another example I can think of is Germany post WW2 compared to post WW1. Are you familiar with the Morgenthau Plan? This was the bright idea of stripping Germany of everything that did more than plow a field. Punitive, vindictive, and even cruel behavior would have been necessary to accomplish and maintain such a plan. The thinking was "the reason for WW2 wasn't because Germany had been treated poorly after WW1, it was that it hadn't been treated poorly enough!". Fortunately saner heads prevailed and instead the Marshall Plan, the exact opposite, was put into action. Germany wound up paying reparations, but in a way that was sustainable as a nation state instead of what happened with the Treaty of Versailles.

Now, the reason I said one has to be careful about using the success of Germany (and Japan) is because it does NOT prove that one can eliminate an enemy militarily and get a good long term result from it. No, what it proves is that if you defeat an enemy and then enact an enlightened (and still firm) peace, you might just get a long term positive result from it with a lot of effort and investment. Of course it helped tremendously that the Germans wanted order and stability, not disorder and chaos. But if the Morgenthau Plan was put into action, I bet you there would have been disorder and chaos galore.

So there is the lesson. Peace does not come from what you do to get the cease fire, peace comes from what follows the cease fire. Israel is very, very good at causing death and destruction of anybody that threatens it (and, unfortunately, the civilians in the way). What it has shown little to no capacity for is figuring out what to do after. So far most of what it's done has wound up being extremely counter productive, like the economic embargo of the West Bank. Such actions ensure conditions which will require further military action to contain.

Will continued hostile actions from Israel upon the Palestinians eventually wear them out and change them to compliant neighbors? I concede that it is possible. And even if it does, how much will it cost and are there "cheaper" alternatives? What I suggest is that there is a possibility of a better, quicker, and probably "cheaper" way of going about this. But Israel has to decide to go down that route because it can't be forced upon Israel from the outside (i.e. UN, US, Europe, etc.).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...