Analysis of the Gaza War: What Are the Strategic Goals and Tactics of Each Side?

[seycyrus]

Please provide a source for this unfounded allegation.

I think the initial "outrage" of past exagerated atrocities and then the expressed disinterest when the truth comes out certainly demonstrates a modus operandi.

Let's look at Jenin.

 

[Art]

I was just reading that: they were called "occupied territories" because they were occupied in the 1967 war. Until a week ago, the were completely unoccupied, yet the world community seems unwilling to change that classification. That is very strange to me and reeks of moral cowardace. Here's the article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/israel.gaza.occupation.question/index.html

I agree, though, that Hamas is using the only tactics at it's disposal to get what it wants. That's not a value judgement on their goals, it just means that they are cognizant of what they want, what they are doing, and what they are up against.

Israel stopped 'occupying' the Gaza strip because as occupiers under international law they were obliged to feed and maintain the population. By ending the occupation and instead turning the Gaza strip into a huge prison camp with Israel controlling all movement in and out by land, sea and air, Israel hoped to get the best of both worlds, a docile population with no tiresome responsibilities. The UN however declared Israel were in fact still de facto occupiers.

 

[Art]

I think the initial "outrage" of past exagerated atrocities and then the expressed disinterest when the truth comes out certainly demonstrates a modus operandi.

Let's look at Jenin.

No, I want Cyrus to back up his statement. If you wish to discuss modus operandi how about this BBC report.

Israel 'shelled civilian shelter

Israeli forces shelled a house in the Gaza Strip which they had moved around 110 Palestinians into 24 hours earlier, the UN quotes witnesses as saying.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) called it "one of the gravest incidents" since the beginning of the offensive.

The shelling at Zeitoun, a south-east suburb of Gaza City, on 5 January killed some 30 people, the report said.

Israel said the allegations were being investigated.

"According to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitoun (half of whom were children) warning them to stay indoors," the OCHA report said.

"Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30."

The UN said those who survived and were able walked 2km to the main north-south road to be transported to hospital in civilian vehicles.

"Three children, the youngest of whom was five months old, died upon arrival at the hospital," the report said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819492.stm

 

[mjsd]

I think the initial "outrage" of past exagerated atrocities and then the expressed disinterest when the truth comes out certainly demonstrates a modus operandi.

Let's look at Jenin.

by the way Art, as far as I understand it, this thread is not supposed to be a debate on which side has the moral high ground, but instead, what they are trying to achieve (with or without morals). So, it is unimportant to verify petit allegations as such.

 

[seycyrus]

No, I want Cyrus to back up his statement.

Which statement exactly? That the population he is describing has a certain tendency to a particular skewed viewpoint? It is apparent to me that his statement is valid.

 

[seycyrus]

Israel stopped 'occupying' the Gaza strip because as occupiers under international law they were obliged to feed and maintain the population.

Please provide evidence for this unfounded statement.

I don't want conjecture or an opinion. I want an Israeli leader or spokesperson stating that this is the reason Israel withdrew.

 

[seycyrus]

No, I want Cyrus to back up his statement. If you wish to discuss modus operandi how about this BBC report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819492.stm

As has been brought up repeatedly, mistakes happen, and tragically people die.

Israel did not target the people on purpose.

 

[Art]

Please provide evidence for this unfounded statement.

I don't want conjecture or an opinion. I want an Israeli leader or spokesperson stating that this is the reason Israel withdrew.

I didn't say it was the only reason. However here is an Israeli source confirming my contention.

Israel's control of the airspace and the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip

With final implementation of the "disengagement plan," on 12 September 2005, OC Central Command, Major-General Dan Harel, issued a proclamation declaring the end of the military government in the Gaza Strip. With this, Israel contended, its control of Gaza came to an end and it was no longer responsible for what happened there. Israel incorporated this contention in the language of the disengagement plan which it drafted, however the disengagement plan also states that," Israel will hold sole control of Gaza airspace and will continue to carry out military activity in the waters of the Gaza Strip." Indeed, Israel has maintained total and sole control of Gaza's airspace and the territorial waters, just as it has from the time when the occupation of the Gaza Strip began, in 1967.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Control_on_Air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp

 

[Art]

As has been brought up repeatedly, mistakes happen, and tragically people die.

Israel did not target the people on purpose.

I'm curious, how do you accidentally pour tank fire into a building for 10 minutes?

 

[seycyrus]

I didn't say it was the only reason. However here is an Israeli source confirming my contention. http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Control_on_Air_space_and_territorial_waters.asp

There is a difference between the "reason for" and the "resultant of". Certainly one cannot claim that all results of a situation were the driving force behind the creation of the situation.

 

[Art]

by the way Art, as far as I understand it, this thread is not supposed to be a debate on which side has the moral high ground, but instead, what they are trying to achieve (with or without morals). So, it is unimportant to verify petit allegations as such.

These petit allegations quickly become 'facts' if left unchallenged.

 

[seycyrus]

I'm curious, how do you accidentally pour tank fire into a building for 10 minutes?

It is mistakenly declared a military target and shelled as such. If Israel wanted those peopel dead, they could have just executed them instead of trying to relocate them to a safe zone.

They gathered them up for humanitarian reasons as is apparent from the bit of the article you posted. Another example of the great lengths that Israel is going to minimize casualties.

 

[mjsd]

As has been brought up repeatedly, mistakes happen, and tragically people die.

Israel did not target the people on purpose.

It is probably not good for their image to have so many Palestinians killed, so it is not to their advantage to target the civilians. But by entering the city and countless massive airstrikes, they know people will be killed (like it or not). As a result, they may be making a mistake strategically in doing so.

 

[seycyrus]

... As a result, they may be making a mistake strategically in doing so.

Evidently many believed that it wouuld have been a far greater strategic mistake to allow the thousands of rockets to continue to fly into Israel for years to come.

That might seem to be a flip statement, but it is more than that.

Israeli leaders are not stupid. They knew ahead of time what risks they were taking. They weighed the pros and cons of reataliating for the Hamas rocket fire and against the pros and cons of doing nothing and continuing to let the rockets fly.

 

[mjsd]

These petit allegations quickly become 'facts' if left unchallenged.

hey, I thought all of us are educated ppl here, and we won't just blindly accept anything... or do we?

It is mistakenly declared a military target and shelled as such. If Israel wanted those peopel dead, they could have just executed them instead of trying to relocate them to a safe zone.

They gathered them up for humanitarian reasons as is apparent from the bit of the article you posted. Another example of the great lengths that Israel is going to minimize casualties.

Unfortunately, it all comes to nothing. If this offensive is not being scaled down soon, any "great lengths" taken will be of no consequence, because frankly ppl will continue to die, mistakes will continue to come,... hey, talking about "great lengths that Israel is prepare to go"... well, it would be quite difficult to argue the case when body count is still sky-rocketing.

Sure, they have tried, but have they really tried hard enough? Anyway, If they are not achieving their aim of keeping the moral high ground in this conflict, perhaps a new shift in strategy is required? After all, the world only wants to see less casualties... most ppl don't even know what the dispute is all about.

 

[seycyrus]

Sure, they have tried, but have they really tried hard enough?

They have tried harder than virtually any other military in world history. They certainly try harder than Hamas.

Anyway, If they are not achieving their aim of keeping the moral high ground in this conflict, perhaps a new shift in strategy is required?

Keeping the moral high ground is not their primary aim. Existence is.

Edit: I mean *Appearing to* keep ...

 

[mjsd]

Evidently many believed that it wouuld have been a far greater strategic mistake to allow the thousands of rockets to continue to fly into Israel for years to come.

That might seem to be a flip statement, but it is more than that.

Israeli leaders are not stupid. They knew ahead of time what risks they were taking. They weighed the pros and cons of reataliating for the Hamas rocket fire and against the pros and cons of doing nothing and continuing to let the rockets fly.

No doubt, there is a risk. It is just a question of whether they want to win the propaganda war or win control of Gaza? Apparently, at this point, you can't win both. Judging by their recent offensive, it appears that winning control is more important than their image in the World.

 

[Art]

exquisitely[/i] well calculated and coordinated: Despite some claims to the contrary, that Hamas is not in control; they are.

If your assertion was correct one would expect Hamas to be the instigator of military exchanges and yet a detailed analysis of who breaks truces and ceasefires first (including the last one) shows it is overwhelmingly Israel who breaks the peace.

this analysis shows that it is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict: 79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern -- in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause -- becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

obviously Israel is keen to show itself as the victim defending itself against unprovoked attacks but this analysis shows this is simply untrue. Rather than suppose that Hamas has some master plan to commit suicide at the hands of the Israelis it seems far more likely that things are simply as they appear. Hamas' firing of rockets is a show of rather futile defiance against a brutal occupying force.

 

[mjsd]

Keeping the moral high ground is not their primary aim. Existence is.

Edit: I mean *Appearing to* keep ...

you might be right, but it still seems a bit far-fetched, I cannot really visualise how Hamas or the entire Palestinian population has the ability to threaten the existence of Israel. Israel is far too strong with their nukes and US backed military hardwares.

frankly, exactly what Israel wish to accomplish here is unclear to me at this point. Only time will tell.

 

[seycyrus]

If your assertion was correct one would expect Hamas to be the instigator of military exchanges and yet a detailed analysis of who breaks truces and ceasefires first

It is of simplicity itself to note that the study only counts when Israelis are *killed*. not when rockets are fired at Israel.

Why the obvious deception?

 

[Art]

It is of simplicity itself to note that the study only counts when Israelis are *killed*. not when rockets are fired at Israel.

Why the obvious deception?

You misread it. Click on the link I provided. It gives full details of ALL rockets fired and when.

Figure 1. Number of Palestinian rockets fired in each month of 2008 (adapted from The Israeli consulate in NYC [pdf])

 

[seycyrus]

you might be right, but it still seems a bit far-fetched, I cannot really visualise how Hamas or the entire Palestinian population has the ability to threaten the existence of Israel. Israel is far too strong with their nukes and US backed military hardwares.

frankly, exactly what Israel wish to accomplish here is unclear to me at this point. Only time will tell.

On a grand scale Israel must weigh the local situation with Hamas with future global implications. Iran undoutedly complicates the issue.

On a small scale, maybe Israel just wants to stop the stupid rocket attacks!

And that certainly makes sense to me!

 

[seycyrus]

You misread it. Click on the link I provided. It gives full details of ALL rockets fired and when.

There is a discrepancy between the tile of the article and statements in the article... for instance...

****
Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.
****

Note, the use of the word "kill".

 

[seycyrus]

FURTHERMORE, from the text taken under figure 2 in the article...

****
For conflict pauses of different durations (i.e., periods of time when no one is killed on either side), we show here the percentage of times from the Second Intifada in which Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians (black), the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis (grey), and the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day
****

Note the use of the word "Kill".

Again, why the deception?

Oh, that's right I know why.

 

[mjsd]

On a grand scale Israel must weigh the local situation with Hamas with future global implications. Iran undoutedly complicates the issue.

what? this has implications in "Israel vs rest of the world" in the grand scale? Perhaps, only if you are talking about the humanitarian crisis which has been created!

btw, one doesn't make friends by showing others what kind of destruction one can made to one's neighbours.

Either Israel has some hidden objectives that we don't know, or it may be doing this all wrong right now... oh but wait, there is an election coming right?

 

[seycyrus]

what? this has implications in "Israel vs rest of the world" in the grand scale? ...

Oh, my scale wasn't that grand. I guess I meant to say that they need to think about Iran.

 

[Werg22]

what? this has implications in "Israel vs rest of the world" in the grand scale? Perhaps, only if you are talking about the humanitarian crisis which has been created!

btw, one doesn't make friends by showing others what kind of destruction one can made to one's neighbours.

Either Israel has some hidden objectives that we don't know, or it may be doing this all wrong right now... oh but wait, there is an election coming right?

Israel is a state that cannot survive without force. It must from time to time show its strength to the world - sort of like "don't mess with us". That's the main goal of the current offensive, the rest is details.

 

[CRGreathouse]

you might be right, but it still seems a bit far-fetched, I cannot really visualise how Hamas or the entire Palestinian population has the ability to threaten the existence of Israel. Israel is far too strong with their nukes and US backed military hardwares.

I'm really not a supporter of the state of Israel (though only in the sense that I am not a supporter of Venezuela or Nepal -- certainly they have a right to exist), but I don't think I can let this one stand.

Any state subject to prolonged attack is threatened. If the citizens of a country don't feel that it can protect them, that is a real danger to the state. The state must act to protect its citizens, though it's not always clear how.

Further, you seem to suggest that Israel should not attack into the Palestinian territories, which would seem to negate the advantage of their US-backed military...

 

[siddharth]

Any state subject to prolonged attack is threatened. If the citizens of a country don't feel that it can protect them, that is a real danger to the state. The state must act to protect its citizens, though it's not always clear how.

Further, you seem to suggest that Israel should not attack into the Palestinian territories, which would seem to negate the advantage of their US-backed military...

I think the point myself and mjsd were making is that innocent civlians and children shouldn't be killed on such a massive scale.

 

[russ_watters]

Since this thread seems to have gone off track, we'll probably end up locking it, however...

Why should previous war be a valid context for Israel's actions? People's sensitivities change.

True, peoples sensitivities change, but you need at least something to use as a reference. Perhaps a different question, though: why have they changed and does the change make any sense? Present a logical argument for the change.

IMO, the scale of Israel's attack is completely unacceptable, if one considers the number of civilian casualties.

What formula would you use to calculate an acceptable number of civilian casualties?

I object to your second point in the strongest possible terms. Perhaps I lack your ability to objectively look at the events to determine possible strategies, but How can the death of (innocent) children and civilians ever be the correct course of action? Obviously Hamas are very guilty themselves, which brings me to my next point...

What I was getting at was correct insofar as the action was most likely to help achieve their goal, not correct as in morally correct. I made no statements in that post about whether either sides actions were morally correct or incorrect.

Do you think that every dead civilian was used as a shield?

Almost certainly not directly, but it is a very tough issue because both sides have made choices to help cause the civilian casualties. It is, however, completely within Hamas's power to avoid all civilian casualties. For example, rather than launching rockets from civilian areas, Hamas could launch rockets form the middle of the desert, which would vastly reduce the risk to their civilians. And rather than have their fighters hide in the cities, they could send their fighters into Israel to engage the Israeli army openly.

Obviously, both of these strategies would result in virtually no Palestinian civilian casualties, yet both would also be sure to result in a resounding defeat for Hamas. However, a third option would be to not fight at all.

What do you make of new reports like this?

Could you make a point, please and ask me what I think of your point? I don't do open ended questions like that. All I see is news stories and no point.

I cannot imagine how anyone can *ever* justify actions which lead to such results.

That's why the intent of this thread was not value judgement. Actions on both sides led to these results and focusing on one or the other just leads to the same tired arguments that go nowhere. I wanted to have some actual analysis that may help figure out why both sides are acting the way they are and what it might lead to.

While the blame game can go on forever, I hope you realize that Israel isn't entirely innocent in trying to maintain peace.

I realize they are not.

In my opinion, that is absolute nonsense. I think it's far more likely that the palestinian individuals, and members of Hamas, view this war as a freedom struggle to get back the land which they think belongs to them. I don't think they would deliberately try to maximize civilian causalities.

Your point does not disagree with my point: they are not mutually exclusive. Do you have any other reasons why you would believe that Hamas would not put it's own civilians in harms' way intentionally? Heck: what are suicide bombings? A good fraction are committed not by seasoned freedom-fighters, but by brainwashed kids!

 

[russ_watters]

this is not a war or a equal fight
one side has home made rockets and some guns
the other has tanks and modern jets

Just because it is not an equal fight does not mean it isn't a war.

and is far closer to the IRA vs brits then not
you need to explain why it is not in you view
plo-hamas-gaza has no more troops or equipment then the IRA did

It is blindingly obvious: Hamas is not a branch of Israel's government and Gaza is not a province of Israel. Ie, what would you expect - for Israel to just go in and arrest all of Hamas? That's just silly, ray.

...]people invading their homeland...

You just described it as a war. Not accuratly, but still...

 

[russ_watters]

Having said that, since Israel is far stronger than Hamas, it seems to me that Israeli strategy is to push all palestinian resistance out by force rather than by negotiation. Mmm... not sure whether it can work in the longer term though.

The best strategy may, in fact, be to reboot: take over the land again, depose the terrorist government, sweep the terrorists away, and set up a functional, sovereign government.

See: Afghanistan. Where Israel went wrong when they left is that they left governing the new country of Palestine up for grabs. You can't depose a bunch of terrorists and then leave a vacuum and expect they won't just come back.

 

[russ_watters]

Please provide a source for this unfounded allegation.

It was easy to find on youtube (from 2007):



Mosque bombing with secondary explosion (ie, due to weapons cache), 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw&feature=related

 

[russ_watters]

If your assertion was correct one would expect Hamas to be the instigator of military exchanges and yet a detailed analysis of who breaks truces and ceasefires first (including the last one) shows it is overwhelmingly Israel who breaks the peace. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html

obviously Israel is keen to show itself as the victim defending itself against unprovoked attacks but this analysis shows this is simply untrue. Rather than suppose that Hamas has some master plan to commit suicide at the hands of the Israelis it seems far more likely that things are simply as they appear. Hamas' firing of rockets is a show of rather futile defiance against a brutal occupying force.

The second paragraph of the link destroys the thesis: Hamas, in fact, never stopped attacking Israel for a period longer than about a month. And btw, it looks a lot worse if you include mortars - Hamas never went below 11 in a month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_mort_gaza_2008.JPG

The second analysis only looks at kills. I fully agree that Hamas is a largely ineffective killer. That doesn't mean they don't try and it doesn't make Israel the agressor to attempt to stop them.

Regarding the Nov 4 attack: Hamas got caught with it's hand in the cookie jar. Having a cease fire does not mean it is ok to dig a tunnel under the border as long as you don't shoot!

[edit: I hadn't read the whole thread yet - someone else picked-up on the obvious deception already]

 

[russ_watters]

Israel is a state that cannot survive without force. It must from time to time show its strength to the world - sort of like "don't mess with us". That's the main goal of the current offensive, the rest is details.

Perhaps, and that is something the newspapers have commented on a little. Your tone implies something that isn't quite right, though, so to clarify: Israel must occasionally show it's military strength in order to keep the terrorists on it's borders at bay. History has shown that when Israel's enemies sense weakness, they attack.