Gaza

[pigeonmeister]

Not been around for ages- but pretty amazed there has been no comment on this conflict. I realise this is a difficult issue to engage with on a US forum, or in fact any forum. I also gave up spending valuable hours of my life debating the major issues in the various Middle East conflicts here years ago.

With that in mind, I would just like to discuss the central strategic, rather than moral or even political, questions. Fundamentally, is there a realistic military solution available for Israel?

1. Is regime change achieveable through military action- even in conjunction with wider and more nuanced policies vis a vis selective engagement with Fatah? Is it even being pursued?

2. Will this action undermine support for Hamas within Gaza?

3. Will this action make the Israeli population, mainly in the south, more secure (fewer rockets fired)?

[Gav]

Have to agree with you. I was surprised that there was no debate on here about it.

[lindajdunn]

I suspect the debate will begin shortly after January 20th and/or after Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State.

Nobody seriously expects anything from the current administration and Obama keeps saying, "We have one president at a time" in response to questions.

[pigeonmeister]

Fair enough. Obviously the political transition in the US has partly defined the timing of Israeli action. But, discussing the Obama's response to the crisis is really a distinct debate from the questions I outlined. I don't see the harm in debating an issue of global importance just because it hasn't yet become fully intimate with the American political process

Even when that debate does occur, I wonder if it will get beyond..What's the point of engaging with a terrorist organisation dedicated to Israel's destruction?

[Epee_Pox]

I admit to not following the story all that closely. Based on my very cursory reading, it seems like just another "Palestinians try to kill Israeli civilians, Israel fights back to protect its citizens, World community gets angry at Israel" situation. What's to comment on?

[jeff]

I agree with Epee_Pox.

We've been down this road before, and argued over it here on f.net without gaining consensus (and sometimes with substantial rancor). Hard for me to see why this would be resolved differently.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I admit to not following the story all that closely. Based on my very cursory reading, it seems like just another "Palestinians try to kill Israeli civilians, Israel fights back to protect its citizens, World community gets angry at Israel" situation. What's to comment on?

I am tempted to say that this constitutes a sound victory for Israeli public diplomacy. However, I agree with Jeff- I don't want to retread a bitter and oft rehearsed path. I don't want to get on a soap box.

EP, If I could take (FAS) accept your first point and engage with your second. There is clearly a political dynamic within the Israeli action- not least an election within Israel. I don't doubt that Israel is aggressively trying to protect its citizens. I am trying to suspend judgement and merely ask will it work? Will it advance Israeli interests in security?

For example, it didn't work in Lebanon in 2006 and Hezbollah are now the most important political group there.

Also, at least 4 Israeli civilians have been killed by rocket attacks in the last 2 weeks (since the war). From June until December 27 no Israelis were killed. More than 30 rockets have been launched today alone (after two weeks bombardment). This is more than twice as many launched between July-October.

Again, if we accept that the main aim of Israeli operations is to stop the rocket attacks- is this the criteria by which we should judge 'success' or 'failure'?

[jeff]

I am tempted to say that the opinion opposing that expressed by EP and myself represents a resounding win for Hamas (and other terrorists) public diplomacy. But that could send us down the road towards f.net rancor, eh?

It would be better to grade 'rate of rocket attack from Hamas' starting from when they ended the ceasefire (December 19, IIRC) rather than the six months preceding it that were supposedly in ceasefire. I would also expect the rate of rocket attack to be higher during an active war than during the uneasy period before it when Hamas maintained a continuous trickle of attacks.

What level of aggression Hamas will be able to sustain after a cease-fire is eventually negotiated remains to be seen. That will be a consequence of the terms of the cease-fire: not that I expect Hamas, the remaining rejectionist "no 2 state solution" party to change their policy, but whether or not the cease-fire curbs their ability to smuggle weapons and use them.

On a thought expressed earlier in this thread: I don't think for a moment that the previous silence on this topic has anything to do with the change in administration. None of us here have been shy about expressing opinions, and weren't waiting for Obama to be Pres and Clinton to be Sec'y of State to furnish new ones for us!


To PM's original questions:

1. Regime change would be great, but very unlikely through this or other military action.

2. Yes and no. Gazans are expressing unhappiness about Hamas bringing death and destruction on their heads, but the same situation generates more hatred towards Israel. In any case, political dissent from Hamas wasn't a safe pursuit even before this latest war started.

3. To be determined. I imagine that this has to degrade Hamas' military capabilities as well as reduce its experienced membership. Hatred will drive new recruits, and they'll rearm through the tunnels to Egypt unless something is done to prevent that.

If the thought has been that a 2 state solution is necessary for long term peace, then it would be the parties objecting to a 2 state solution (Hamas, Hezbollah, and their Iranian sponsors) that are the chief obstacle.

[Nolano]

1. I'm not sure about the specifics of all this, but it seems like Hamas, Palestein's democratically elected government, and one of the only ones in the middle east, shouldn't just be removed because we don't like them. If they go cause a mess of trouble, maybe. But it seems like the theme is often "Democracy is good! Until you elect someone that we(usually the US) don't like. Then it's bad, and we'll replace them with a dictator."

2. Hamas' support was actually really lagging before all this. The whole offensive has very much strengthened their influence.

3. I highly, highly doubt it.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jeff

I am tempted to say that the opinion opposing that expressed by EP and myself represents a resounding win for Hamas (and other terrorists) public diplomacy. But that could send us down the road towards f.net rancor, eh?

Totally agree this line is a non starter.

It would be better to grade 'rate of rocket attack from Hamas' starting from when they ended the ceasefire (December 19, IIRC) rather than the six months preceding it that were supposedly in ceasefire. I would also expect the rate of rocket attack to be higher during an active war than during the uneasy period before it when Hamas maintained a continuous trickle of attacks

Perhaps- but the point remains, is the stated goal to increase security in the long term by eliminating Hamas' operational capability? If it is, and Israelis are now less secure following two weeks of the most intense barrage ever seen in Gaza, what hope for the longer term? Of course, the retort of 'continous trickle of attacks' is the 'continues incursions, killings, blockades and other forms of economic and pyschological warfare.'

What level of aggression Hamas will be able to sustain after a cease-fire is eventually negotiated remains to be seen. That will be a consequence of the terms of the cease-fire: not that I expect Hamas, the remaining rejectionist "no 2 state solution" party to change their policy, but whether or not the cease-fire curbs their ability to smuggle weapons and use them.

So the hope is to force Hamas into a negotiated settlement when there was/is no hope it will change its policy?

Surely, if Hamas are not expected to change, then it is their operational capability which Israel are aiming to destroy. Can they and at what price?

There was a ceasfire that previously cut 98% of rocket attacks. I question the need to kill 800 odd (mostly civilian) Palestinians to get another, better one? Desperate though I am to avoid the pitfalls we both agree need to be avoided, I think it is impossible to discount the specific IDF action that led Hamas to break the ceasefire. Not that I would justify, their actions at all.

On a thought expressed earlier in this thread: I don't think for a moment that the previous silence on this topic has anything to do with the change in administration.

No I don't really- just surprised it hadn't come up.

To PM's original questions:

1. Regime change would be great, but very unlikely through this or other military action.

Agreed

2. Yes and no. Gazans are expressing unhappiness about Hamas bringing death and destruction on their heads, but the same situation generates more hatred towards Israel. In any case, political dissent from Hamas wasn't a safe pursuit even before this latest war started.

Hamas were elected- so political dissent could have been actively demonstrated. I ask now, has the situation eroded Hamas' popular mandate? I am entirely convinced not. Even Fatah have had to support their plight- (accepted begrugingly and not always consistently).

3. To be determined. I imagine that this has to degrade Hamas' military capabilities as well as reduce its experienced membership. Hatred will drive new recruits, and they'll rearm through the tunnels to Egypt unless something is done to prevent that.

Degraded to the point where it is no longer to pose an unacceptable threat (in Israel's eyes) to their citizens? Haven't so far- what more can Israel throw?

If the thought has been that a 2 state solution is necessary for long term peace, then it would be the parties objecting to a 2 state solution (Hamas, Hezbollah, and their Iranian sponsors) that are the chief obstacle.

I find it impossible to engage with this one- see our informal 'terms of engagement'!

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but your comments seem to suggest that it is very unlikely that there is a military solution to the stated problem of rocket attacks or (unstated) aim of regime change.

So where does that leave us?

1. Understandable punitive action?
2. Political (electoral) value?
3. The demonstration/reassertion of military superiority with no tactical aim- but in itself a wider national security strategy following defeat in Lebanon?
4. Wider diplomatic or geopolitical agenda?

[jeff]

First, to Nolano's point #1: no, that's not the issue. It's not that Israel (and the US and EU) don't like Hamas, it's that they're shooting weapons across the border to Israel. If it was democratically elected governments were unpopular the list would be much larger, starting, say with Mugabe, and in some circles, Bush.

PM: First, it's probably best we continue on our 'rules of engagement', as I expect we strongly disagree on the underlying issues and will make no progress there. I hope we can avoid statements like "I question the need to kill 800 odd (mostly civilian) Palestinians to get another, better one?" since that imputes guilt to Israel for deliberately setting out to kill 800 mostly civilians. (In that case I wonder why they trouble to airdrop leaflets saying "leave this area") From my point of view it would be "I question the need for Hamas to ramp up its attempts to kill Israelis for no particular objective at all, while cynically operating in the midst of Palestinian civilians and exposing them to expected death and privation." So, let's be as careful as we can to use neutral attribution of motive or blame unless we really want to go there (and I don't). BTW: as far as I'm concerned, the comparison of "how many died on each side" as a proxy for "who inherently is right" is completely wrong and a moral disaster. Many more Germans than Britons died in WW II, but Britain was in the right nonetheless. I would also argue that dead Palestinians on TV is key to Hamas's political objectives, so reducing death tolls for them is not an objective. Perhaps that's off the 'rules of engagement' list also, but that's been a standard tactic for decades of this conflict.

I think it is Israel's objective to force Hamas into a negotiated settlement in which they do not attack Israel, Hamas' desire to do so notwithstanding. That would be something better than the status quo ante, which permitted Hamas to assemble arsenals. Maybe a stretch goal would be to have Egypt and the "international community" take over responsibility for the "humanitarian aid" which Israel is currently responsible for (another item I think completely inappropriate). Till now, Egypt has said "nothing doing", for which I really can't blame them. Much better for everyone except the Gazans and Israel to stick that responsibility on Israel.

The demonstration of military strength probably has a strategic (not tactical) goal of demonstrating that IDF really does have teeth, to repair the damage to its reputation from 2006. "Mess with us, and eventually we're going to come over and pound you hard" has strategic value. As an (ex) Brooklynite, that appeals to me as a valid strategy (that's a comment on Brooklyn and aggressive behavior, not geopolitics or the Middle East!)

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

With that in mind, I would just like to discuss the central strategic, rather than moral or even political, questions. Fundamentally, is there a realistic military solution available for Israel?

1. Is regime change achieveable through military action- even in conjunction with wider and more nuanced policies vis a vis selective engagement with Fatah? Is it even being pursued?

2. Will this action undermine support for Hamas within Gaza?

3. Will this action make the Israeli population, mainly in the south, more secure (fewer rockets fired)?

1 - Regime change by force is certainly possible, at least superficially. Will that new regime survive the first truly democratic election? I highly doubt it.

2 - Every analyst I've seen/heard/read holds an increase of support for Hamas more likely.

3 - In the short run, probably. Is it going to resolve the underlying issues that are the causes for the willingness to launch rockets? Not a chance. When you collectively punish 1.5 million people (most of them civilians, most of those not involved in these launches), you tend to make more enemies than you can possibly kill (unless you kill off the entire population, which I hope is not the final objective here). Even if we ignore the legality of the actions in terms of human rights laws, I cannot help but see the entire operation as entirely counterproductive in the long run.

[Inquartata]

The only military solution involves genocide. Hamas and its imitators draw on a bottomless well of young people so inculcated with the victim mentality and persecution complexes that Israel would have to all but wipe out the Palestinians to be rid of the attacks. Destroy Hamas and another would rise to take its place.

And even genocide would just energize other like groups, like Hezbollah.

This situation will go on until one side or the other is utterly destroyed, I am afraid.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by jeff

I agree with Epee_Pox.

We've been down this road before, and argued over it here on f.net without gaining consensus (and sometimes with substantial rancor). Hard for me to see why this would be resolved differently.

I agree, in general there is not much new to this story, but the differences may be significant.

I believe that this is the first time that there has been such division in Arab world. First, there are two Palestinian factions and not one, so there is an active force within the West Bank that would like to see Israel dislodge Hamas, and is willing to work with the Israelis to see this happen.

Also, with the rise of Iran and their extension, Hezbollah, there is now an open conflict between Iranian and Arab muslims that goes even beyond the Sunni/Shia conflict. Egypt is finding itself under attack from all sides as Mubarrak is hated by the Iranians, al Queda, and the Palestinians.

Plus, this particular conflict was started so clearly by Hamas breaking the truce that they are getting very little sympathy even from their usual cheering section.

I think if Israel makes a deal with Syria there will only be Iran openly backing terrorists around Israel, and that would change the dynamic dramatically too.

[jeff]

Very astute comments - I have to rep you for that if I'm able to. Not-so-privately, a lot of the Arab world has been happy for Israel to pound Hamas, though it's certainly so sad that so many noncombatants get killed and hurt (as in war in general, and including wars started by a war mongering government willing to sacrifice its own people). If those game-changing circumstances come off, perhaps things could be better. The alternative is the 'forever war' bleakly and accurately decribed by Inq.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The only military solution involves genocide. Hamas and its imitators draw on a bottomless well of young people so inculcated with the victim mentality and persecution complexes that Israel would have to all but wipe out the Palestinians to be rid of the attacks. Destroy Hamas and another would rise to take its place.

And even genocide would just energize other like groups, like Hezbollah.

This situation will go on until one side or the other is utterly destroyed, I am afraid.

Holy crap, I never thought it would happen, but for once I'm in complete agreement with Inquartata. In fact, this is pretty much what I was thinking. The only way to get peace in this area is for Israel to completely annihilate the Palestinians. I dont know what it is, human nature, stupidity, or what, but every time Hamas or Hizbullah starts a war with Israel the Palestinians inevitably blame Israel for it instead of the actual instigators.

I give it another 5-6 years more of this back and forth stuff before some terrorist manages to set off some WMD in Israel and the Israelis lose their restraint and get medieval on the Middle East.

.

[Epee_Pox]

Hauptman - this isn't the first time there's been such division in the Arab world. Last time around, at the beginning, the same ones were making noises against Hamas and in favor of Israel. They don't want the Shiite Iranian influence there, and Israel was suddenly the enemy of their enemy. But then Israel started to be perceived as losing, and the Arab support immediately dried up.

Inq - another viable solution is annexation and citizenship. Take over the whole territory, make it all one single country, AND extend full citizenship with full voting and property rights to everyone there. Rule by law, give everyone a voice, and police the few who would disturb the peace.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Inq - another viable solution is annexation and citizenship. Take over the whole territory, make it all one single country...

Uhmm, yeah, because then all the arabs and palestinions and jews wont all of a sudden want to kill each other... LOL.

.

[jeff]

Aliens. We need to be attacked by aliens from outer space. Then all of us humans (*) will band together for once and for all and defeat them. That worked really well in the movies.

(*) some people on this board may not qualify. Fifth columnists in our midst!

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Inq - another viable solution is annexation and citizenship. Take over the whole territory, make it all one single country, AND extend full citizenship with full voting and property rights to everyone there. Rule by law, give everyone a voice, and police the few who would disturb the peace.

I think the problem there is that Israel wants to remain a Jewish state. I think that there is some dispute about exact numbers and which way you think that the existing non-Jewish, Palestinian citizens might vote, but the combined population is fairly evenly split with probably a majority going to the Palestinians. I think that is one of the major reasons that annexation didn't happen long ago.