Israel cannot win - Jane's

[subsuelo]

Israel probably judges it has up to 10 days to complete its Gaza operation, but a military victory over Hamas is not possible, defence analysis group Jane's said Monday.

The security situation in southern Israel and the Gaza Strip will not be improved by Israel's assault on the Islamist group, said David Hartwell, Jane's country risk Middle East analyst.

Fighting will likely continue until Israel feels it has completed its objectives, because the United States is unlikely to put pressure on its ally before Barack Obama replaces George W. Bush as president on January 20, he said.

"Israel probably judges that it has another week to 10 days to complete its operations in Gaza, given the time it has taken for international pressure to reach a point where engagement is deemed necessary," said Hartwell.

..."With a military victory for Israel over Hamas not possible, the security situation in southern Israel and Gaza will not improve, even in the longer term."

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=13286">Jordan Times - read more

[Recursion]

1. We're in the age of purposeless wars

And have been for about 40 years. Well, they're not "purposeless" in the subjective sense; people have reasons for starting them. But they no longer have an "end" in the Clausewitzean sense.

[Zywiec]

5. Exactly. We no longer allow an end. n/t

[TomClash]

6. And who benefits? nt

[High Plains]

9. Those asshole Israeli politicians running for the presidency.

"Ooh, vote for me, I can kill more Palestinians than the other guy."

[bernynhel]

12. What they DON'T say on CNN: It isn't Israel's objective to kill Palestinians...

...it is Hamas' objective.

Hamas knew exactly what Israel's response would be to launching the newly acquired, Iranian-manufactured Fajr-3, 30 mile range missiles, months before Hamas used these missiles to signal the end or their participation in the cease fire. No one has less regard for the lives of innocent, non-combatant Palestinians in Gaza than Hamas.

All the news analysts keep saying "What was Hamas thinking they could accomplish by ending the cease fire by launching missiles from the Gaza strip?" when the answer has already been expressed in the daily casualty listings. Hamas' justification? The Israeli siege of Gaza and how miserable life is there when very little of the bare necessities of life, let alone commerce, can get through the extremely tight checkpoints - what did Israel EXPECT? For months Hamas brought the missiles through the tunnels - not baby formula or anything else the Palestinian civilians in Gaza needed. Hundreds of them as well as the necessary materials and equipment for their management and deployment. Much more important than food, medicine, raw materials for manufacturing - if those things were abundant via the tunnels the rockets would be hard to legitimize.

Hamas' only objective is to agitate the Muslim world over the injustice of the disproportionate response by the Israeli military illustrated by the daily loss of Palestinian life and limb. Except there is no such thing as disproportionate response to missiles. The appropriate response is maximum force. The innocent lives lost, the lack of water and medicine needed to help the women and children, victims of Israeli aggression, the situation is deplorable. The Arab world in an uproar. US leaders and anylists debating how much to lean on Israel - Just like Hamas predicted. Perfect. The whole scenario premeditated, staged and painted with Palestinian blood.

Hamas only wishes that the ratio of their women and children killed and injured were greater in proportion to Hamas fighters. Only 20% of casualties in Gaza have been non-combatant. Hamas had hoped for a much, much higher percentage. The Israeli military makes every effort to minimize civilian collateral casualties, to the chagrin of Hamas. Every drop of Palestinian blood flows against Israel.

Many Israelis are pacifists. Many are against building settlements in the West Bank. They protest against the Israeli government. Run for office and get elected. Change things. Nowhere else in the Middle East can citizens disagree publically with their governments.

So, as for the "asshole Israeli Politicians", its not how many Palestinians they can kill, High Plains, its how may Hamas can GET killed. And you're the perfect audience for the players along with all the other bigots in this thread that look for any excuse, even one as thinly veiled as this, to point their fingers at those they hate. Those dirty ..........................Israelis!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. How?

[anonymous171]

37. Didn't Che Guevara write something like that?

The conditions for revolution can be created through resistance or something to that effect. Basically, get the government to respond to your attacks in such a way that swings the undecided masses your way.

[The Magistrate]

41. Hardly Original To that late arrival To the Business, Sir....

[TomClash]

16. Actually I was thinking of defense industries in general nt

[kstewart33]

2. Isn't this the way it always is?

Israel invades, kills alot of people, and then nothing changes?

[subsuelo]

3. Well, Israel does continue to steal land

you could call that change, no?

[Selatius]

4. I fear Israel has only accomplished one thing in the end.

That is, they have made Hamas stronger inside the Gaza Strip. In this situation, Hamas can paint itself as a heroic protector of Palestinian civilians. They will paint themselves as David in the face of Goliath. They will essentially do the same thing Hezbollah did in Southern Lebanon, use the war to grow their power.

[Malikshah]

7. Lebanon II, add it to the list along with Vietnam, Afghanistan (x 3 Britain, USSR, US), and

Iraq (x2 Britain, US)

When will they ever learn...when will they ever learn....long time passing.....

[Kurska]

8. Good to see they are declaring hamas's victory even before fighting ends

Remind me, In war the side that is sent fleeing from the other usually wins right?

[High Plains]

10. We'll see where the IDF is in a couple of weeks.

Probably headed back home, having managed to inflict great damage on Gaza and kill many Palestinians, and watching the latest Grads from Gaza sailing over their heads. They will have the added satisfaction of knowing they helped ensure there will be at least another generation of Palestinians who want revenge.

[Kurska]

11. Good to see Nostradamus is posting on DU now

Why don't we wait until people stop dying to make assumptions.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wellst0nev0ter]

18. If I Want To Listen To Fairy Tales

I prefer "Little Red Riding Hood".

Better hasbaraniks, please!

[shira]

51. Hamas needs this kind of koolaid drinking PR

someone's gotta save them, right? They are, after all, the Palestinians best hope for peace. :eyes:

[Bragi]

19. That Israel cannot win is a larger point

The larger point being that it seems increasingly likely that, in the end, Israel will be defeated by the millions of people on their borders who hate them.

That is the sad reality of the situation. It's been 60 years now, and Israel has failed to come to terms with its neighbours. Everyone can point fingers of blame at one side or the other, or both sides, but can anyone really dispute that Israel's future is pretty damn bleak. Without billions in US military assistance, Israel would have already disappeared.

So it's time to get real. Time to start thinking about humanitarian assistance to the millions of Israelis who will need, and deserve, generous resettlement support when the country collapses.

(Note to reader: I expect to be labelled a racist genocidal Nazi by some here for this posting. I am nothing of the sort. I just think it's time to acknowledge that Israel, after 60 years, has failed, and people who care need to start thinking about helping those Israelis who will eventually become refugees when it's non-sustainability is finally apparent.)

- B

[Recursion]

20. I offer Montana to them

Throw in Wyoming while we're at it.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vegasaurus]

23. There are many people who don't think Israel has the right to exist

They won't admit it in polite conversation, but their intents are known.

Those who believe that Hamas is the elected government, that violent resistance is a Palestinians' moral right are part of this group.

I have had people say that Israel has outlived its time and that the Palestinians deserve to have "their country" back.

Like they ever had a country.

I think the growing worldwide anti-semitism makes the need for Israel that much greater.

A couple of years ago, when the anti-semitism in France got really bad, about 2000 French Jews emigrated to Israel.

Israel will protect herself to the end, and use her nukes if necessary.

[Bragi]

24. On Israel's right to exist

After observing Israel's history sympathetically over the years, I've reluctantly reached the conclusion that Israel did have "a right" to exist, but bad decisions over the past 60 years, especially since 1967, by Israeli leaders and by their neighbours have worked out such that -- realistically -- this right is now irrelevant.

The right to exist doesn't mean Israel actually CAN exist as the secure, prosperous country it could and should have become. The situation is now too far gone for Israel to become a viable, secure nation. I think humanitarian and generous resettlement for Israelis who will need to settle elsewhere is what needs to happen. Eventually, after enough Palestinians and Israelis have been killed to convince everyone involved that Israel is no longer viable as country.

- B

[Taitertots]

26. Forced expulsion

Forced expulsion from Israel is your plan?

I don't understand what you expect to happen to Israel if it is no longer viable as a country. You want to force them from the nation they built over the last 60 years at gun point. Who is going to be doing this action, which will obviously draw violent resistance? Not to mention that any fair price for Israel would be so great that no one is going to pay it. Who is going to pay for the lands in the middle east the refugees to Israel abandoned at the creation of Israel. If Palestine has claim to the lands they left, than Israel has claim to the land they left of near equivalent value.

Absent arab aggression Israel has been a perfectly fine functioning state. Aside from the military aid needed to prevent aggression against them. Which has come unprovoked since the birth of Israel. Israel has what could be considered a modern economy. The only thing stopping Israel from being viable is unprovoked aggression from its neighbors. Then the lands they cede and the refugees this creates becomes Israels fault.

[Bragi]

27. It's not a plan, it's a likelihood

That's my point. The likely outcome of 60 years of failure -- on both sides -- is that Israel really isn't a viable state now, and isn't likely to become one. Too much water under the bridge.

As for the "fair price", quite honestly, I'd support huge payouts to Israeli refugees.

And quite frankly, if the amount of money spent by the US alone on Israeli defence for the last 60 years had been allocated to individual Israeli citizens, they would all be multi-millionaires.

Which would be absolutely fine with me.

I just think that eventually, people have to concede when something just isn't going to work, no matter how desirable it would be for it to work.

And that's the situation now with Israel, as I see it.

- B

[Vegasaurus]

28. Good luck with that plan

Israel has always shown restraint with its nukes, but if you try to take away the country, they will use them.

[Bragi]

29. Can't see that

I don't see the real existential threat to Israel coming from state actors. It comes from terrorists and insurgents, who will eventually make the place simply unlivable, and the country non-viable.

If these opponents could be nuked, then Israel, which has shown little moderation when it comes to self-defense, would likely have done so already.

- B

[Crunchy Frog]

33. I'm thinking also internal demographic issues

both the Arab Israelis who have never really been integrated into the society at at large, and the large population of stateless people living under Israeli jurisdiction on land that Israel more or less claims sovereignty over. It's becoming harder and harder to imagine what could be done with that population that wouldn't bring about the destruction of Israel, at least as a Jewish state. On top of that is the divisions within the Israeli population itself. The divide between the secular Israelis and the religiously fanatic is becoming a chasm.

In my opinion, the hostile neighbor situation is very much secondary.

[Vegasaurus]

40. Israel can continue the status quo a good long time

The citizens are not miserable in Israel.

They live a good life, despite terrorism.

If Israel has to respond this way to terrorism, with more threats, wars and restrictions, for another 60 years, it will.

The only way I could see Israel using a nuke would be if there was a real threat, from another country like Iran, when it gets its nuke,

Or, if there was such worldwide outrage at Israel, that there really was an effort to take the country out.

Then they would use the nuke.

At least I think so.

[bushmeister0]

38. Such an eventualtiy has been discussed before:

From a previous post:

"In his excellent book 'The Gun and the Olive Branch,' David Hersh quotes Hebrew University's professor Martin van Creveld and his pessimistic appraisal of Israel's potential reaction to another existential threat, at the time the second Intifada. If Israel were going to be destroyed by the terrorists, there was only one thing to do:

'We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force...Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' Our armed forces...are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that will happen, before Israel goes under.'

Of course, he was hoping this would never happen...unlike Ephraim Kison. Kison wrote in the Jerusalem Post on April 26, 1975 that Israel needed the bomb because it could never win an arms race with all its Arab neighbors. Such a race, therefore, even with U.S. money and arms, was ultimately self-defeating:

'Our one and only alternative to our gradual destruction by arms race is to develop a nuclear deterrent of our own. It's our single chance for telling our enemies and our one friend: that's it, we're not playing anymore....Sooner or later we'll have to say it out loud. Sooner or later we'll have to announce: if any Arab army crosses this green line, we reserve the right to use atomic weapons, and if he crosses the red line, we'll drop the bomb automatically, even if this whole country is blown up by nuclear retaliation. You don't believe it? Try us!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3673116&mesg_id=3673349

[Bragi]

42. That's ridiculous

The idea that an entire society would destroy itself and everyone around them to avoid what they see as their own inevitable defeat would require, at minimum, that they truly believe they have no other alternative but death.

As the non-viability of their state becomes more and more apparent, I think Israelis will have much better alternatives to choose from than mass suicide, and much wiser people than Martin van Creveld to lead them to those better alternatives.

- B

[Vegasaurus]

43. The point is that Jews will not quietly go into ovens again

They will not quietly wait as the world tries to annihilate them.

If there is an effort to take their country, they will protect it at all costs.

And yes, that means using a nuke against the enemy, if it came down to that.

They are not giving in to Arab aggression now, or in the future.

History has not been kind to Jews, but they have learned at least that one lesson.

[Bragi]

45. This is the fallacy of false alternatives

You argue that there are but two choices for Jewish people living in Israel: to remain in Israel, or "the ovens".

That's simply untrue. There can be, and there are, other, far better alternatives than a) clinging to a failed state that cannot provide them with the security and prosperity its citizens deserve, and b) annihilation.

Those are the alternatives that I think need to be pursued, and that will be pursued, once the impossibility of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbours, however tragic and disappointing this is, is acknowledged.

- B

[bemildred]

44. FWIW:

That does not sound like Mr van Creveld to me, he is an interesting and very intelligent fellow, and that is a very stupid and immoral thing to say. Pending someone supplying me with a reference and some context, I would dismiss it as bullshit.

[Bragi]

46. Unfortunately, it checks out

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts

I picked that off of Wikipedia. Perhaps he has since renounced this statement?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld

[bemildred]

47. That quotes Dayan.

And misquotes van Creveld.

[Bragi]

48. Here's the whole quote from the Guardian:

That, at least, is the pessimistic opinion of Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 'If it went on much longer,' he said, 'the Israeli government lose control of the people. In campaigns like this, the anti-terror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing. I regard a total Israeli defeat as unavoidable. That will mean the collapse of the Israeli state and society. We'll destroy ourselves.'

In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to regard the 'transfer' of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing 'more probable' with each passing day. Sharon 'wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed'.

But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? 'That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother." I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts

On reflection, I can't tell whether this is David Hirst paraphrasing van Creveld, or Hirst making the statement. It's poorly written or translated, so I'm not sure who is expressing that sentiment.

[bemildred]

49. Which says "Let me quote Dayan ..."

He is not advocating it, he is warning against the loons who might do it. And he says:

"We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible."

Edit: Mr Hersch is an asshole, and he is misusing Mr van Creveld for his own purposes.

[Bragi]

50. Noted /NT

[bushmeister0]

52. Of course, it's ridiculous.

Van Creveld isn't saying this is something he wants, he's saying there's a contingent out there who are so nuts, they think this is the only alternative.

Note Ephraim Kison's piece about crossing red lines, just try us!, etc., was in the Jerusalem Post! It wasn't in some right wing rag or something.

I think the scariest part of this type of thinking, the idea that 'if you attack us we'll take you and everybody else with us,' is what happens if the people you're trying to intimidate aren't scared and attack anyway. Then what do you do?

[Taitertots]

31. Sounds awful

So you believe America should stop sending military aid to Israel?

Instead we should accept the situation where terrorism against Israel increases and the nations surrounding Israel declare war on Israel again. Then we should pay the remaining living Israelis trillions of dollars as they flee Israel. For the land stolen from many of them at the start of Israel and for the land stolen from them at the end of Israel and to relocate all of them and build them a comparable society to the one they had built in Israel.

[Bragi]

32. You write:

So you believe America should stop sending military aid to Israel?

I think you should recognize that sending military aid to Israel has not succeeded in making it a viable, secure country.

You then write Instead we should accept the situation..."

Yes, I think you ought to accept the situation, which is that for 60 years now the military route has failed to make Israel a secure and prosperous country, and that there no viable non-military solution, things have gone too far, too much water has passed under the bridge, and after so many decades of fighting hatred is too entrenched for peace to prevail.

Once that reality is acknowledged, then another set of responses can take form. And yes, it will cost trillions of dollars. Far as I'm concerned, this would be a just and necessary expense, and it's probably no more than the US will end up spending anyway on failed military approaches.

It's time to move forward.

- B

[bushmeister0]

35. Isn't Israel the only "country" in the world without definable borders?

[Sezu]

22. But Israel is already winning. Major terrorist leaders are dead

Terrorist infrastructures are destroyed and each day brings more defeats for Hamas AND various sundry terrorists. The human toll is horrendous of course but Israel is not losing in any real sense of the word. (world opinion aside, which sucked already to begin with...remember that "shitty little country," remark?)

[Bragi]

25. Israel "winning"?

Israel can win militarily as long as the US supplies it with arms. This doesn't mean it is a viable country able to offer prosperity and security to its people.

[PerfectSage]

30. Success on the tactical level doesn't equal success on the grand strategic level

[daleo]

34. A hopeless status quo can be maintained for an indefinite period

That's all that these military incursions can do.

[Sezu]

36. Uh Hamas will not be at their status quo unless

they've perfected instant reincarnation and Borg replication abilities.

[daleo]

39. Status quo means no improvement on underlying situation

Some resistance will always arise, so long as the lot of the Palestinians doesn't improve. Reincarnation isn't needed, just the normal process of birth and new generations living in a hopeless condition. You ought to know that by now.