Posted on 03/06/2006 2:28:25 PM PST by anotherview
Mar. 6, 2006 20:32 | Updated Mar. 6, 2006 20:36
Analysis: 'Short and tight defensible borders'
By YAAKOV KATZ
Israel's security fence.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
Avi Dichter's announcement this week that Israel would unilaterally disengage from large sections of the West Bank if Kadima won the upcoming elections, brought to surface one of the most current crucial arguments within the IDF General Staff over the security importance of settlements in Judea and Samaria.
While anticipating a second disengagement under the next government, some in the IDF were taken by surprise with Dichter's announcement that the disengagement would be a strictly "civilian affair" and that the army would still maintain its presence in the evacuated territories.
While the defense establishment prefers not to enter into political discourses and plans to leave the sensitive issue of which exact settlements will be evacuated up to the government, the general view is that control over the settlements themselves is no longer critical to security within the Green Line. The settler's claim that communities like Elon Moreh near Nablus and Psagot near Ramallah are protecting cities like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem was no longer the case since a Dichter showed how, even under a unilateral evacuation, the army could still preserve a presence but without the burden of having to guard the settlements.
While everyone agrees that a disengagement from the West Bank is different from a security standpoint than this past summer's withdrawal from Gaza, there are some high-ranking officers that support, from a tactical point of view, the creation of "short and tight defensible borders" while pulling the army entirely out of the territories.
Other officers agree with Dichter and maintain that while civilians should be pulled out of the West Bank, the IDF needs to preserve a presence deep within Palestinian territories to continue protecting coastline cities like Tel Aviv and Kfar Saba.
"More land creates better security," one officer said explaining the position. "This way we create buffer zones and prevent terror from spilling over into the Green Line."
The IDF Planning Directorate is busy at work coming up with different diplomatic and strategic alternatives now that Hamas has taken over the Palestinian Authority and Israel has already pulled out of the Gaza Strip. The soldiers working in the directorate's strategic section composed a paper entitled "Promoting Israel's interests Following Disengagement" several months ago while Fatah was still running the PA but with conclusions, IDF officers said Monday that were still applicable today.
While the paper lacked a "bottom line" it did provide an analysis of the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East and concluded that Israel's current presence in the territories was unnecessary and even detrimental. The chances of reaching a peace agreement with the PA, the authors further concluded, were slim to none and Israel, if interested in creating defensible borders, should consider a second unilateral withdrawal.
ping
Please note that it is very late in Israel. My responses to this and other posts won't come until at least the morning, Israeli time. -MF
---------------------------
I've been saying the same thing for years. The Israelis should simply (?) decide among themselves where their final border is to be. Then they just withdraw behind it, fortify it, and say to the 'Palestinians' "This is our border for the time being. Once you have established a functioning democratic state on your side, recognized our rights to nationhood, and renounced violence, then and only then we will negotiate any adjustments of the border or other international issues. Good luck, and don't make us come over there." It seems that this is approximately the course that the Israelis are (finally) on. I am more hopeful for Israel now than I have been in the recent past. Negotiating with the 'Palestinian' authorities available up to now has been a fool's errand. There was simply nothing to work with. I'm glad the Israelis seem to be moving past that to unilateral action. I want this issue stabilized so it won't continue to distract from other pressing concerns (e.g. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc.)
No matter how much lipstick they put on this pig it is still Israel giving up strategic depth and appeasing brutal terrorists.
No matter how much you say thing slike that doesn't make it true. There is no sane strategy that involved having millions of hostile people, your enemy, *inside* your borders where they can do harm.
Is it better if you have no control over them and they are free to gather whatever weapons they want, to shell you at will etc? The idea would make sense if the Israelis really did separate from them and respond to any attacks with brutal resolve. The reality is that they not only are not going to separate but that the hostile enemies are going to get a free corridor through Israel. That plus the extraordinarily timid response to the now routine shelling of Israel (free shots until they hit someone and then a show of force and back to appeasement) is nothing more than retreat and appeasement in the face of terror.
The corridor idea was dropped when Hamas won their election. It was never implemented and the Kadima position is that it never will be. The IDF response is, sadly, a balance between what is prudent militarily and what is necessary diplomatically. It is softened by concerns about what Israel's few friends in the world (read: the United States) will object to. If you really want a stronger support convince the Bush administration to stop pressuring Israel for "restraint".
Read Caroline Glick's latest column on the subject of American pressure on Israel. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395572580&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. When you are weak and dependent you invite that type of pressure. When you are strong and self resistant you avoid it. Sharon and Olmert have been acting like dogs begging for food from the Americans and that is why they are getting treated the way they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.