The Winds of War Shift?

That is the title of an opinion piece by Jonathan Rosenblum in today's Yated Ne'eman.

How I would like to remove that question mark from the title. And until midday yesterday (Sunday), it finally appeared that a more definitive and positive statement might be possible. Now, however, the question mark must return.

Last week ended with the Israel’s political echelons subjected to withering criticism from two of its best friends in the international media: Charles Krauthamer and Bret Stephens. Stephens, the former editor of the Jerusalem Post, pronounced Israel to be losing the war, both politically and militarily, in the Wall Street Journal. He pointed out that Prime Minister Olmert had consistently downgraded Israel’s war goals from the outset of fighting. Initially, Israel had spoken of "breaking" Hizbullah, then of evicting it from the Israeli border, still later of "degrading" Hizbullah’s capabilities, and, finally, of creating the circumstances for an effective international force to police the border.

Yet after scathingly critical articles by Bret Stephens, Caroline Glick, and Charles Krauthammer, there seemed to be a definite shift in Israel's favor.

And indeed by the end of last week, it appeared that the tide had turned in Israel’s favor. Israeli troops were now operating against Hizbullah positions in twenty or so villages in southern Lebanon, as opposed to the two that had occupied all the IDF’s attention in the war’s first weeks. And in a daring commando raid, deep in the Beka’a Valley, more than 60 miles north of the Israeli-Lebanese border, an Israeli force managed to capture five Hizbullah fighters and valuable intelligence information, and return home without incurring any casualties. Naval commandos landed off the Lebanese coast, and entered the coastal city of Tyre, from which most of the missiles aimed at Haifa have been launched. "The IDF has been able to learn on the go, and learn well," pronounced Glick.

But then, just as quickly and without warning, the tide seems to have turned once again--against Israel.

The horrendous casualties when a katyusha landed directly on a group of reservists gathering at Kfar Giladi on the Lebanese border, killing 12, however, seemed to have changed all that. The Jerusalem Post reported Monday morning that the IDF no longer planned to push to the Litani, and would content itself with securing a 6-8 kilometer security zone from the northern border.

With a cease-fire that would allow Israel to leave its forces in place till a suitable international force could be formed to take its place, Hizbollah would still be able to claim victory for being able to live to kill another day. never mind the question of what kind of international force can possibly be found that can stand up to the intimidation and bribes of Hizbollah--which so obviously undercut UNIFIL, currently under the command of the French.

Rosenblum suggests a way for Israel to keep Hizbollah under control:

Is there anything else Israel can do to deter Hizbullah? At least one school of thought assumes there is: Put Syria on notice that it will be held accountable for Hizbullah.

Hizbullah depends on Syrian support. And there is reason to believe that Syria will listen if the threat is credible. In 1998, Turkey threatened to go to war with Syria if Syria did not cut off support for Kurdish rebels in Turkey. Syria did. The time has come, writes Efraim Inbar, for Israel to talk Turkey to Syria.

The only question is: Does any Israeli leader know Turkey.

After Rosenblum finished his article, news came out that Israel might yet take the battle to Hizbollah and the winds might yet shift once again.

According to Arutz Sheva:

Halutz, who has not appeared in public in recent days, announced Tuesday that his deputy chief of staff, Major-General Moshe Kaplinsky (photo above), will work alongside Adam, overseeing all military forces operating in Lebanon.

...Others explain that the move signals more than dissatisfaction, but also a clear sign that Halutz expects to receive the green light from the prime minister for a large-scale military operation, one that will involve more than the close to 100,000 reservists already activated for service, one that will bring IDF forces deeper into Hizbullah territory in Lebanon.

Military historians report that Halutz’s move is not without precedent, citing that during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, then Chief of Staff David Elazar appointed his predecessor, former IDF Chief of Staff Chaim Bar-Lev to take command of the southern district, replacing Southern District Commander Major-General Shmuel Gonen (Gorodish).

...Since the start of the warfare, 105 Israelis, civilians and military personnel, have been killed. 3,487 Katyusha rockets were fired into Israel, and Magen David Adom emergency medical service officials responded to 1,070 calls for assistance resulting from rocket attacks. Air force officials’ report pilots have carried out over 5,127 sorties, and foreign sources report close to 800 Lebanese have been killed.

Despite Peretz’s and Halutz’s definitive position, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is moving cautiously, with aides admitting the prime minister remains undecided. Olmert is seeking additional guarantees regarding a decisive IDF victory, realizing the past four weeks have not produced the desired results. Analysts agree that IDF forces have ‘won’ most battles, but Hizbullah has not exhibited true signs of defeat as rockets continue to pound civilian population centers.

One thing is clear, when this operation is finished, there will be an investigation--both on how the 2 soldiers were abducted to how the operation was run. There will be tough questions, and answers that Israel will not be happy with.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Lebanon and Hizbollah and Hezbollah

Just Say After Me: Firing Kassams Is A War Crime

On Thursday, Justice Minister Haim Ramon spoke to Ynet about a number of topics, but one thing stands out if for no other reason that it has been so long in coming:

Firing 40 Qassams a day on Sderot and trying to intentionally kill civilians is a war crime.

...Accidents during battle happen to every superpower that is engaged in the war on terror; it happened in London, in Spain, it is happening in the United States – it happens everywhere

True, this is only one Israeli official saying this, but:

• Imagine if Olmert would say that too--instead of just issuing apologies.
• Imagine if the Israeli government as a whole issued such a statement.
• Imagine if Israel made of point of saying this and hammering the point home at every opportunity
• Imagine if the Media started saying this.

To a degree some in the media do seem to be making the point.

Justice Minister Ramon:

...these incidents that may be deemed war crimes by the international community can be easily avoided if Israel ceases to be a target of daily terror emanating from the Gaza Strip; and this is taking place after Israel withdrew from the entire Strip and evacuated 8,000 Israelis from the area.”

Cliff May:

Is there no one – in Gaza, in Europe, at the UN – who will say that it is at the very least irresponsible to set up a launch site for a missile attack on Israel so close to areas where Palestinian civilians swim, sunbathe and picnic?

Also, note how every story on this emphasizes that Hamas has been “observing a truce.” How is permitting the firing of missiles from territories under its control, not a violation of this “truce”?

Charles Krauthammer:

But the obvious question not being asked is this: Who is to blame if Palestinians are setting up rocket launchers to attack Israel — and placing them 400 yards from a beach crowded with Palestinian families on the Muslim Sabbath?

Whether the rocket bases are near civilian beaches or in remote areas, why are the Gazans launching any rockets at Israel in the first place — about 1,000 in the past year?

To get Israel to remove its settlers, end the occupation and let the Palestinians achieve dignity and independence? But Israel did exactly that in Gaza last year. It completely evacuated Gaza, dismantled all its military installations, removed its soldiers, destroyed all Israeli settlements and expelled all 7,000 Israeli settlers. Israel then declared the line that separates Israel from Gaza to be an international frontier. Gaza became the first independent Palestinian territory ever.

And what have the Palestinians done with this independence, this judenrein territory under the Palestinians’ control? ...They declared war instead.

The point sounds so simple.

"What we're doing is self defense," Ramon said. "Contrary to the Palestinian terror, we try not to hurt civilians. The situation with them is completely different. Their aim is to target our civilian population in Sderot and the near-Gaza communities."

It just bears repeating.

Alot.

Technorati Tag: Israel. and Palestinians and Terrorism and Kassam and Gaza

Civil War: The Iraqi and Palestinian Models

Apparently, it is now important to consider defining the killing over in Iraq as a civil war--or not as a civil war. I agree with Charles Krauthammer when he writes that "this whole debate about civil war is surreal"--but then he loses me when he continues:

What is the insurgency if not a war supported by one (minority) part of Iraqi society fighting to prevent the birth of the new Iraqi state supported by another (majority) part of Iraqi society?

But isn't what he is describing an insurgency, which is defined as, "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict."

And then Krauthammer turns around and writes:

As I noted here in November 2004: "People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side " -- the Sunni insurgency -- " is fighting it." [emphasis added]

Well, if only one side of an insurgency is fighting an insurgency--that is an insurgency, isn't it?

The whole think is pretty ridiculous, when you think about it. We live in an age when the word 'terrorist' has been completely corrupted, and now we're all supposed to agree on a straightforward definition of what a civil war is?

Meanwhile, what about the Palestinian civil war? No not the civil war in 1947--according to HistoryCentral.com:

During the period between the end the UN vote on partition and the end of the British mandate, Civil War broke out between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Most of the battles during this period were won by the Jews.

From the moment the United Nations voted to partition, civil war erupted in Palestine. [emphasis added]

That is an interesting way of putting it, but no, when people talk about the Palestinian civil war they are referring to the currenting in-fighting among Palestinian Arabs, the one that is not generally talked about--except as something to be avoided by Israel making concessions to prop up the PA.

But something is definitely going on there. Back in January, following Hamas' victory, you had Hamas clashing with security forces, Palestinian police storming the parliament building, and Fatah gunmen posting a picture of Arafat and firing their guns in the air--and things were pretty lively over in the West Bank as well, with more clashes just last week.

Isn't that a civil war?

But while the fighting and killing in Iraq is over the direction Iraq will take, the clashes in Gaza and the West Bank are over jobs and political positions that are going to be lost, as well as an intense rivalry between Hamas and Fatah. Basically, it boils down to a gang war. It is a far cry from what Dennis Prager prescribes in Only a Palestinian civil war will bring peace:

A significant percentage of Palestinians do not want peace with Israel; they want peace without an Israel. If these individuals and groups are not fought by those Palestinians who want peace with Israel, peace is impossible.

This fundamental difference between the political war going on in Iraq and the turf war between Palestinian Arab groups is why in Iraq, Hussein loyalists who opposed the January 2005 election were, by December, urging their fellow Sunnis to vote and warned Al Qaeda to stay away--while Hamas, which is careful not to welcome Al Qaeda with open arms, has no grudge with them.

Al Qaeda knows that Iraq is a real country and a real democracy in the making, while Hamas is a kindred spirit--another terrorist group that will not play the games that Fatah did under Abbas, making sounds of peace.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hamas and Al Qaeda and Fatah and Iraq and Civil War.

The Drinks Are on Mr. Krauthammer

(Welcome to Washington Post readers. We wrote about another Krauthammer article back in August about Israel and the Disengagement -- and please stop by the home page and take a look from the top.)


According to Charles Krauthammer, it's time to break out the champagne:

Because we Americans tend to gauge Middle East success by White House signing ceremonies complete with dignitaries, three-way handshakes and pages of treaty provisions, no one seems to have noticed how, in the absence of any of that, there has been amazing recent progress in defusing the Arab-Israeli dispute.

First, the more than four-year-long intifada, which left more than 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians dead, is over. And better than that, defeated. There's no great Palestinian constituency for starting another one. In Israel, tourism is back, the economy has recovered to pre-intifada levels, and the coffee shops and malls are full again.

Second, the Gaza withdrawal was a success. On the Israeli side, it was accomplished with remarkable speed and without any of the great social upheaval and civil strife that had been predicted. As for the Palestinians, without any fanfare whatsoever, their first-ever state has just been born. They have political independence for 1.3 million of their people, sovereignty over all of Gaza and, for the first time, a border to the outside world (the Rafah crossing to Egypt) that they control.

Third, on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian line, vigorous electoral campaigns are underway. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has abandoned Likud, established a new centrist party that leads all others in the polls, effectively marginalized those remaining Israelis who want to hold on forever to all the territories, and set Israel on a path to a modest and attainable territorial solution to the century-old conflict.

As a result, Israel's regional isolation is easing, as Islamic countries from Pakistan to Qatar to Morocco openly extend or intensify relations, while anti-Israel rejectionists such as Syria and Hezbollah are isolated and even condemned by name in the U.N. Security Council.

And how did we get to this point? Krauthammer asks and answers the question very simply.

How did this come about? Israeli unilateralism and Palestinian maturation.

The problem is that Mr. Krauthammer himself indicates that maturation has nothing to do with it:

It's not that many Gazans would not like to continue the romance of revolutionary terrorism and jihad. But they no longer have the means. The separation fence makes it almost impossible to launch attacks into Israel. And rockets launched into Israeli towns are met by retaliatory Israeli artillery barrages that make the rocketeers rather unpopular at home.

When a child takes a hammer and starts making holes in the wall, and then you take the hammer away, you don't say that the reason he stopped is because he matured.

'Palestinian maturation'? Pity. He really me going up to that point.

Soccer Dad traces the path that Krauthammer's views have taken

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Krauthamer's Missile Deterence

In Friday's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, offers Israel advice on how to deal with the Kassam rockets that the Security Fence cannot prevent:

Israel should announce that henceforth any rocket launched from Palestinian territory will immediately trigger a mechanically automatic response in which five Israeli rockets will be fired back. There will be no human intervention in the loop. Every Palestinian rocket landing in Israel will instantly trigger sensors and preset counter-launchers. Any Palestinian terrorist firing up a rocket will know that he is triggering six: one Palestinian and five Israeli.

Israel would decide how these five would be programmed to respond. Perhaps three aimed at the launch site and vicinity and two at a list of predetermined military and strategic assets of the Palestinian militias.

This policy would echo, though in far more benign form, America's Cold War deterrence policy of "massive retaliation." That was all somewhat theoretical, but the Soviets apparently thought otherwise when they backed down during the Cuban missile crisis. In Gaza, the issue is not theoretical. Once Israel leaves, there is no way to dismantle the rockets. Deterrence is all there is. After but a few Israeli demonstrations of "non-massive retaliation," the Palestinians themselves will shut down their terrorist rocketeers.

One potential problem is that "military and strategic assets of the Palestinian militias" are different from those of Russia in the Cold War in that unlike Russia, Hamas and other terrorist groups keep their military assets right in the middle of the civiliam population. Is Israel really going to risk the wrath of the world on this? If a purely defensive security fence gets the UN in an uproar, imagine the mileage they will get from Krauthamer's anti-missle deterence.

Additionally, why would anyone imagine that those firing the missiles into Israel would be impressed with the potential counter-attack, even if it were to hit civilians?

According to Amira Hass in Haaretz:

The main headline in the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Ayyam on Wednesday, August 3, reported that a boy of 6 had been killed in the northern Gaza Strip and another 10 children had been wounded....Ever since the Palestinians began to manufacture and launch locally produced missiles, about four years ago, most of the casualties they have inflicted - dead and wounded - have been Palestinian, and not Israeli.

Hass goes on to claim that now that the goal in Gaza has been achieved, the firing of the Kassam rockets will be discouraged:

Therefore, it appears that the PA is now trying to strip the armed Palestinian groups, and first and foremost the Islamic opposition organizations, of the halo of heroism created around the firing of mortars and Qassams.

But it remains to be seen whether the PA has the authority and respect needed to end the missle attacks among their own, let alone Hamas which is riding high on its perceived role in forcing an Israeli withdrawl.

Even if the PA and the splinter groups do distance themselves from the collateral damage caused by their missile attacks, is there any reason to think that they will not glorify the collateral damage of Israeli missile counter-attacks?

Why does Krauthamer think that the collateral damage caused by Israel will not be viewed by the terrorists as collateral victory?

While it is tempting and deceptively straightforward to analyze how the Palestinian Arabs should think about and react to the Disengagement (see earlier post), alot of what has been written seems to be based on wishful thinking.