Doc's Talk: "Goals"

Friday, December 26, 2008

"Goals"

Arlene Kushner

The question is being raised in many quarters regarding what the goals of an operation in Gaza would be.

What is obvious to anyone who sees clearly on this issue (sees clearly = considers the past and the future and not just the current situation) is that simply getting Hamas to agree to another "lull" is not a good idea. Those "lulls" are used by Hamas to strengthen and will have serious repercussions down the road. And yet, that is what people in our government talk about: "If Hamas will agree to another period of quiet, we will go with that." Certainly they see achievement of a "lull" as having political gain: We brought quiet to the country. It also seems to be the case that fully retaking the Gaza Strip is not a viable option (at least under current circumstances). Too costly in terms of lives, too lengthy a process, too risky in terms of international opinion and political ramifications (see below).

Then what?

~~~~~~~~~~

The worst thing would be a wishy-washy tentative operation that makes us look incompetent and unsure of ourselves. When we move it has to be with certainty and (taking care to move with all possible concern for our soldiers and Arab civilians) a strong hand. No "proportional" response. Strong.

Of all the suggestions I've seen to date, what I ran yesterday seems most intelligent. Similar thoughts are being shared by other analysts, such as Aaron Lerner of IMRA:

-- What must be taken and held -- with surrounding area -- is the Philadelphi Corridor, which marks the border between Gaza and Sinai. It is underneath this area that the smuggling tunnels run.

We never should have left that area in the first place. When we did the "disengagement," the pulling out of Gaza, plans called for us to remain. It was Condoleezza Rice who pushed us into this because it was supposed to give more power to the PA (which was then still in charge in Gaza).

-- Targeted killings.

-- Destruction of terrorist infrastructure. Weapons storage and manufacturing areas, as well as buildings where records are kept and planning is done. Wipe out computers and communications systems as possible.

~~~~~~~~~~

This accomplishes several things:

-- It weakens their ability to hit us, not only now but in the future, as the venue for bringing in new weapons will have been blocked and the capacity to manufacture them will have been seriously weakened.

-- It weakens Hamas politically if its leaders have been sent beyond this world and its ability to function bureaucratically has been truncated.

-- Of great significance, it restores our deterrence power, so that not only Hamas but other groups will understand that attacking us is not such good idea.

-- It shifts the balance psychologically, so that we are now calling the shots and not the terrorists. We here in this country need this desperately. The sense of being powerless, of sitting here and knowing terrorists are going to launch weapons at our civilians, is destructive to our sense of ourselves as a nation. It is corrosive to the national soul.

~~~~~~~~~~

Then an agreement for quiet can be struck with Hamas, but this time from our strength. No nonsense from them about how "calm for calm" is not a good deal. They'll grab calm without all sorts of other demands.

If we play things properly, we should not agree to such a calm until they surrender Gilad Shalit. THAT would be the final, and appropriate, price for them to pay. We've neglected this in our dealing with Hamas for too long. Our vaunted "leaders" have conducted two separate negotiations with Hamas, one for "calm" and another for Shalit. They should not have calm until we have Shalit.

~~~~~~~~~~

Barak has announced that in spite of the continuing rocket fire, crossings will be opened and emergency supplies will be allowed in. This is a good move, first from a humanitarian perspective and then from a political perspective vis-a-vis the international community.

Barak has used the closing of the crossings as the means of "punishing" Hamas when rockets are fired. Two sorts of things go through these crossings essentially: humanitarian supplies such as basic foods and medicines, and commercial supplies. I don't think most people realize this. Merchants inside of Gaza can order whatever supplies they intend to sell or use in their businesses from suppliers outside of Gaza.

Part of our concern has been preventing the entry into Gaza of commercial supplies -- such as building supplies and fertilizer for farming or even large quantities of paper -- which might be co-opted by Hamas for their purposes: building bunkers, manufacturing rockets, proceeding with bureaucratic process, etc. The other is to prevent the Hamas-run entity from becoming a thriving enterprise.

It has been Israeli policy to allow humanitarian supplies in whenever possible. (Sometimes crossings must be closed entirely to protect Israeli lives because shooting is done at the crossing points themselves.) Israel also allows Gazans who need medical treatment to come across to Israeli hospitals, even if the crossings are closed.

~~~~~~~~~~

From my perspective the closing of crossing has been a failed policy. First because the international community attacks us as being inhumane and Hamas secures some public sympathy. I have documented in my writings on several occasions the difference between what is being claimed (the people are starving, etc.) and what the reality inside of Gaza is (according to knowledgeable sources and factual evidence that can be seen). UNRWA and the UN more broadly have been prime culprits in the PR war that involves exaggeration. They lie, to make us look bad.

And then because so much has been secured via the dozens of tunnels from the Sinai that commercial ventures are not being stymied quite as it was thought they would be.

This is not to say that conditions are wonderful in Gaza. Life there is no picnic. But they are not what the Arabs would have the world believe they are. Hamas is seeking full commercial traffic.

~~~~~~~~~~

If and when we do go into Gaza, we will have to contend with the exaggerations regarding civilian damage we've done. We've seen specific instances of this in the past, with regard to Lebanon. I believe our government will make every effort to offset this by allowing in basic humanitarian goods in considerable volume so that this, at least, is not a significant issue.

~~~~~~~~~~

Another issue to be considered in all its various ramifications is the different results that would be achieved if Hamas were weakened as versus Hamas being taken out completely. If Hamas were gone, there would be a clamor to turn the area over to the PA, and with this, the claim that there is now one negotiating partner, one address, for all Palestinians and we should move ahead in arranging that two-state solution.

We do not need to sacrifice a single one of our boys for the sake of Fatah and increased pressure on Israel to negotiate. I deplore the fact that we pulled out of Gaza at all, and in due course I hope we can move back in. But indeed now might not be the time.

It remains to be seen how parameters change after January 9th, which is when Hamas says Abbas's term as president is up.

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

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