Posted on 09/25/2019 6:05:53 AM PDT by billorites
As Israeli frustration mounts about violence coming out of Gaza, the idea of a ground invasion, and once and for all to finish with Hamas aggression, becomes more appealing. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed this approach, saying that "There probably won't be a choice but to topple the Hamas regime." While sympathetic to this impulse, I worry that too much attention is paid to tactics and not enough to goals. The result could be harmful to America's foremost Middle East ally.
Attitudes toward Gaza are in flux. Efraim Inbar, the strategist who heads the Jerusalem Institute for Security Studies, for years advocated "mowing the grass" as "Israel's strategy for protracted intractable conflict." By this, he advocated an occasional reminder to Hamas' rulers and other Gazans of Israel's overwhelming power.
Implicit in this approach is an acceptance that, most of the time, Israel accepts aggression from Gaza, with its attendant damage to property and life. As recently as May 2019, he dismissed the Palestinian threat to Israel as a "strategic nuisance."
But Mr. Inbar recently recognized the high costs of this passivity and now calls for a "restricted ground invasion" of the territory: Why? Because "a short-term ground operation will bring better results than Israel's activity thus far [i.e., mowing the lawn]. We need to maneuver inside enemy territory, locate them, and destroy them, or tie the hands of its members."
Others agree. For example, Ayelet Shaked, leader of the New Right party, calls for a widescale military operation in Gaza: "We must choose the time that is best for us, evacuate the Israeli citizens who live in towns along the Gaza envelope in order to give us maximum flexibility, and we must uproot the terror from within Gaza."
To these analyses, I respond with Carl von Clausewitz' simple but profound counsel: first decide on your policy, then your strategy, then your tactics. Or, in plain English: Start by figuring out what you wish to achieve through the use of force, then decide the broad outlines of your approach, then the specific means.
Seen in this light, debating whether to engage in a ground invasion and to overthrow Hamas is debating a tactic; this should not be the topic of conversation until the goal and the means to achieve it have been decided upon. To start by focusing on tactics risks losing sight of the purpose.
So, what should Israel's goal in Gaza be?
The occasional show of force against Hamas interests has failed, as has destroying Gaza's infrastructure; so too the opposite policy of good will and the prospect of economic prosperity. It's time for something altogether different, a goal that transcends sending signals and punishing misdeeds, something far more ambitious.
Victory is such a goal. That is, aim to impose a sense of defeat on Gazans, from the head of Hamas to the lowliest street sweeper. Aiming for an Israel victory is entirely in keeping with historical war aims but it is out of step with our times, when even the words victoryand defeat have dropped from the Western war lexicon. The Israeli security establishment seeks just peace and quiet vis-à-vis the Palestinians; Mr. Inbar speaks for them in dismissing the goal of victory over Hamas as "naïve."
Negotiation, compromise, concessions, and other gentle means have failed since 1993.
Negotiations, mediation, compromise, concessions, and other gentle means have replaced victory. These sound good; but they have failed in the Palestinian-Israeli arena since 1993 and blindly persisting with them guarantees more destruction and death.
With imposing a sense of defeat on Gazans the goal, what are the strategy and tactics? These cannot be decided on in advance. They require a contemporaneous and detailed study of the Gazan population's psychology. Questions to be answered might include:
Does the deprivation of food, water, fuel, and medicine in retaliation for attacks on Israel inspire a sense of resistance (muqawama) and steadfastness (sumud) among Gazans or does it break their will? Same question about the destruction of homes, buildings, and infrastructure. Would knocking out the Hamas leadership paralyze the population or prompt an insurrection?
Israel's security establishment needs to explore these and related issues to map out a sound strategy and to offer reliable counsel to the political leadership. That done, with victory as the goal, Israel finally can address the hitherto insoluble problem of Gaza.
They can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t ask for American treasure or lives.
They should bulldoze it. Start fresh.
Cut off the northern eigtth of Gaza, Push the population therein to south of the new border. Tell the Gazanites to calm down. If violence continues, repeat and repeat until there is peace in Gaza even if that means that all the Gazanites are in Sinai.
Short answer to the article’s headline: YES.
As long as America isn’t involved ...let them do what they think is best
Israel should shrink Gaza. Put more distance between It and Israel. Fortify border.
Respond in kind to attacks.
The Gaza experience has demonstrated to rational Israelis the folly of a “two state” solution. Imagine an even larger, fully militarized adjacent Palestinian state next to Israel. Promises could be etched in stone but there would never be true peace or stability. Peace can never come to the region until either Palestine or Israel cease to be definable political entities. Both have strong emotional claims to the same land.
My wife and I just watched the Netflix show SPY. It recounts the exploits of Eli Cohen from 1959-1965. His infiltration as a spy for the Mossad in Syria. We watched it in two nights. It stars Sasha Baron Cohen of “Borat” fame. I would highly recommend it to all.
It is an affront to the Lord that any new Jews even live in Gaza, let alone control it and major sections of Judea and Samaria. Jews are not following the Torah, and that is what is keeping the Third Temple from being built.
NON Jews, not new.
Should Israel invade Gaza?
No. Not unless they’re ready to shoot its terrorist government, drive its current occupants into the Sinai and the Med, and add Gaza to Israel.
IIRC, the "Palestinians" destroyed Gaza's infrastructure when they took over.
The only tangible thing that matters to Muslims is physical land. To take the land of others is their obligation, and the worst thing that can happen to them is to lose land. Nothing else even comes close.
But this points the way for Israel to achieve peace.
Whenever Hamas attacks, Israel needs to seize a “sliver” of Gaza. If this pains the Israelis too much, they should offer the lands’ owner a fair market price for the forced sale.
And the Israelis must be resolute that the taken land will *never* be returned, no matter what the Muslims promise, threaten, or beg for help from the international community.
For their part, the international community will be puzzled and will tell Israel to give that “sliver of desert” back, in the hope it will settle down the Muslims. But instead, Israel must both refuse and clearly tell the Muslims that for each subsequent attack, they will lose another sliver.
And they must mean it. If the Muslims don’t stop with the violence, then Israel might take all of Gaza, bulldoze it and keep it fallow. The Gazans may even be offered a deal, a one time stipend, to move to Egypt. And the Egyptians getting a one time payment to take them.
It would cost Israel just a fraction of what it pays now.
Because the first 40 years of occupation were such a big success?
Maybe promoting the conflict between Hamas and the Salafis?
Should the United States invade Alabama?
Should Portugal invade Madeira?
Should the United Kingdom invade the Falkland Islands?
Do I write headlines well enough to be an editor for the Washington Times?
Great series. Pretty true to the book, too.
No, because there is no will by Israeli leaders such as Gantz or Netanyahu to do what needs to be done once an ‘invasion’ would take place.
Same reason America should butt out of most conflicts it is involved with; no will to finish anything. Just a way to profit military-industrial complex.
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.