Doc's Talk: Military Implications of a Gaza Ceasefire Collapse

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Military Implications of a Gaza Ceasefire Collapse

Jeffrey White
November 20, 2008

Clashes, rocket fire, and threats of escalation challenge Gaza's five-month-old ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. In the past two weeks, Israeli forces have reportedly killed 17 Palestinian fighters, while militant groups in Gaza have fired over 140 rockets into Israel. Despite the ceasefire's benefits -- for Israel, the end of cyclical clashes, rocket attacks, and civilian casualties, and for Hamas, a reprieve from Israel's intense military and economic pressure -- there is no guarantee it will hold. As such, it is worth considering how the ceasefire might end, what renewed conflict might look like, and what this means for Israel's long-term confrontation with Hamas. Hamas's Military Buildup
Hamas's military capabilities have grown since 2005 as a consequence of four major developments: Israel's August 2005 disengagement from Gaza, Hamas's 2006 electoral success, Hamas's June 2007 takeover of Gaza, and the June 2008 ceasefire agreement. Israel's disengagement from Gaza removed the constant threat of Israeli security forces and reduced the ability of Israeli intelligence services to monitor Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations. Hamas used the period after Israel's withdrawal to expand its forces to the point where it could prevail over Fatah and emerge as the only serious military and political power in Gaza.

With Israel gone and Fatah defeated, Hamas gained control of Gaza's quasi-state resources, including the military and intelligence resources and infrastructure once controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA). This dominance removed any serious internal obstacles to Hamas's military expansion, and the subsequent ceasefire agreement created even better conditions for its military ambitions by freeing the organization from the threat of Israeli raids and incursions. Egypt's failure to secure its side of the border also facilitated Hamas's buildup.

Hamas aspires to emulate the military capabilities of Hizballah, and the commander of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Southern Command, which is responsible for Gaza, has described a Hizballah-like military force developing in the Gaza Strip. This force includes territorial commands, organized brigade and battalion formations, specialized units, foreign training, and doctrine, tactics, and weapons suitable for fighting the IDF. According to Israel's director of military intelligence, Hamas's defensive preparations in Gaza are "based on subterranean fortifications, explosive devices, and snipers." In future clashes, the IDF would be confronted with a better organized and trained force with more sophisticated arms, especially antitank weapons, and improved defenses.

How the Ceasefire Could Break Down
Four scenarios could produce a collapse of the ceasefire. First, the ceasefire could simply unravel without any clear decision or breakpoint. The incidents since November 4 suggest how this might work: a defined threat leads to an Israeli raid and a Palestinian retaliation, producing heightened tensions, increased threat sensitivity, and a lowered reaction threshold -- all of which create more military and civilian casualties. Eventually, no one is talking about a ceasefire, or if they are, they are using the past tense.

Second, the ceasefire could end by accident, most likely as the result of a Palestinian attack. Unguided rockets or mortars fired on towns and settlements would eventually cause significant Israeli civilian casualties. Even Israeli precision attacks run the risk of collateral damage, since no targeting process is immune from human error, bad information, or happenstance.

Third, even limited, well-planned operations can escalate. The kidnapping of IDF soldiers could lead to hot pursuit, and small force incursions or raids could become entangled with defenders, leading to expanding confrontations as reinforcements are called in. The current series of clashes started when the IDF penetrated 250 meters into Gaza to locate and destroy a Hamas tunnel that was reportedly intended to support kidnapping operations. Hamas militants in Gaza maintain close surveillance of the border, follow IDF movements, and are highly sensitive to even small Israeli incursions. They often attempt to engage raiding forces, as responsiveness to Israeli infiltrations appears to be integral to Hamas military doctrine. The IDF, for its part, seems to have reduced its threshold for responding to threats along the border fence.

Fourth, Hamas or Israel may decide that the ceasefire is no longer in its interest and deliberately break or not renew it. Although the relative calm has served the interests of both sides until now, it may not do so indefinitely. The political context in which military events could occur is evolving with the change of U.S. administrations, the scheduled January end of Mahmoud Abbas's PA presidency, and the Israeli election in February. As they play out, these events will have consequences for the military.

These scenarios are not mutually exclusive and do not exhaust the list of possibilities for a collapse of the ceasefire. For instance, actions by Gaza or West Bank terrorist organizations not under Hamas control could generate pressure on Israel to take action, thus bringing the IDF into contact with Hamas elements.

Post-Ceasefire Military Activity
If the ceasefire ends, it may be "business a usual": a series of routine actions by both sides, as typified by the pre-ceasefire period. During that time, the Palestinians sniped at Israeli targets, planted bombs, fired rockets, lobbed mortar shells, and occasionally engaged in larger operations such as attacks on crossing points, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks inside Israel. Some of these actions were quite sophisticated, as exemplified by the June 2006 kidnapping of IDF corporal Gilad Shalit and the April 2008 attempt to penetrate the Kerem Shalom crossing point, which included the use of armored vehicles. Hamas regards such actions as part of its panoply of offensive military actions.

For its part, Israel has its own routine and special operations: counter rocket/mortar fire, offensive patrolling and incursions, targeted raids against personnel and facilities, and deep incursions when Palestinian actions exceed tolerable levels. Over this past weekend, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak publicly raised the possibility of such action if rocket attacks continued.

Improved Hamas capabilities will likely translate into tougher engagements for the IDF and increased casualties on both sides. Fiercer fighting and greater casualties create pressures to step up the scale and scope of violence. Even if large-scale incursions by Israel are avoided, the fighting is likely to be qualitatively different.

Implications
Hamas's 2007 destruction of Fatah in Gaza clearly illustrated the axiom that "power grows out of the barrel of a gun," while the group's agreement to the June 2008 ceasefire showed its tactical flexibility. Although Hamas is under political, economic, and military pressure in the West Bank, it holds untrammeled authority in Gaza. While Hamas's strength rests on a combination of political, religious, social, and economic sources, military power is a sustaining force. Without military power, there is no jihad, no "resistance," no "liberation," and no survival for Hamas in the face of its enemies. Pressure from Israel and the PA in the West Bank probably reinforces Hamas's determination to strengthen its hold on Gaza and to expand its military capabilities.

Despite its military improvements and ambitions, Hamas could not stand up to the IDF in an all-out fight. But there is little likelihood of such a direct conflict. In combating its irregular enemies, whether in southern Lebanon or Gaza, Israel's ability to deploy its full military capacity is always constrained by political factors that shape the amount, intensity, and duration of the military force that Israel can apply. And as Hamas's capabilities grow, it becomes more difficult for Israel to employ limited force effectively with respect to costs and benefits. While further and more-intense military engagements between Hamas and Israel are not predestined, there is little doubt that Hamas poses an increasingly complex military challenge to the IDF.

Jeffrey White is a defense fellow at The Washington Institute, specializing in the military and security affairs of Iraq and the Levant. He is also a former career intelligence officer.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk