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

[russ_watters]

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

Define "massive". How many civilians should each side kill?

 

[BobG]

With rocket fire from Lebanon and a UN resolution for a cease fire approved by the Security Council (14-0 with the US abstaining), it would look like Hamas is meeting more of its goals than Israel is.

On the other hand, since both Israel and Hamas have completely disregarded the UN resolution, maybe Hamas's only victory so far is having the fight expand to the Northern border, as well.

 

[devil-fire]

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.

I don't see why it wouldn't work in the long term. Anyone outside influences on the conflict are effectively moot while the USA vetoes any actions and supports Israel as a proxy. If it wasn't for the possibility of losing the support of the USA, Israel can do anything it wanted to the population of Gaza without concern of reprisal from outside forces. The neighboring Arab states aren't about to directly interfere or risk being caught indirectly interfering with Israel's actions because of Israel's nuclear weapons and other Superior arms. The point I'm trying to emphasize here is that I vary much believe that pushing all Palestinian resistance (to anything) out by force would be vary effective at this time.

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

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

The question of Israeli existence isn't an issue here. Whereas Israelis being pushing into the sea (or the destruction of the Israeli state) used to be a sound justification for an overwhelming use of force to deter any other potential aggressors, that simply isn't a factor any more. Israeli has shown how soundly they can defeat likely aggressors several times.

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.

Again, Israel isn't under threat here. I don't believe that Israel is displaying their military superiority here to deter Iran for example.

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

If I understand the purpose of this topic, it isn't to advocate what "should" or "should not" be done, but to try to understand if these things helped or hurt either side. For example, is the killing of massive amounts civilians and children interfering with Israel's goals in this conflict? And what exactly are those goals, considering all that has happened preceding and durring this conflict? What impact does this massive body count have on the goals of Hamas?

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.

It sounds like what you are suggesting here is that if Hamas wanted to prevent all civilian casualties, while not being utterly destroyed, they should practically surrender to Israel or effectively disarm themselves.

It sounds like these civilian casualties could in some way benefit Israel if the view being adopted by the American people is that the best solution to stop these civilian casualties would be Hamas stopping all resistance.

 

[russ_watters]

With rocket fire from Lebanon and a UN resolution for a cease fire approved by the Security Council (14-0 with the US abstaining), it would look like Hamas is meeting more of its goals than Israel is.

I agree. The resolution includes the primary concession Hamas is trying to get via this particular aggression: opening the border with Israel (not sure about the border with Egypt). So it would seem the strategy is working.

Now where does that put us? If Israel accepts this deal and accepts a "cease fire" that includes a "only" one or two missiles or shells a week fired at their civilians, where does that leave them? Israel can't be happy with that and while Hamas will be happy that it won a small battle, the war for Israel's destruction will have to continue. So after a short lull to consolidate their political power, Hamas...well... lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[russ_watters]

It sounds like what you are suggesting here is that if Hamas wanted to prevent all civilian casualties, while not being utterly destroyed, they should practically surrender to Israel or effectively disarm themselves.

Yes, that is essentially what I am suggesting. Israel has shown both a willingness to live in peace next to a Palestinian state and a willingness to unilaterally give back land when it is convenient to them. If peace is established, there would be no reason for Israel to continue policies intended to protect Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people. The alternative choice (for Hamas) is to continue going the way they are going, which may eventually chip away a piece of land they are happy with (doubtful), but it will certainly ensure decades more of misery for the Palestinian people. The biggest sticking point to me is that Hamas wants nothing less than the annihilation of Israel. It is tough to go to a negotiating table when you know you'll never get any deals suggested that don't contain 'but eventually, we're going to kill all of you' in the fine print.

That said, Israel has tried unilateral concessions in hopes it will bring peace. Hamas has never even tried accepting the concept of peace.

I don't know if we have any Tom Clancy readers here, but "The Sum of All Fears" starts with a peaceful resistance movement sweeping across an occupied territory and an Israeli police officer getting angry and shooting a protester in cold blood. Sort of a Tienanmen Square incident but where the tanks didn't stop. Though the incidents we see today generate controversy only a clear-cut good/evil moment like that could truly shift world opinion toward the Palestinians. The world has to believe they want peace before they will pressure Israel (for real) to back off.

It sounds like these civilian casualties could in some way benefit Israel if the view being adopted by the American people is that the best solution to stop these civilian casualties would be Hamas stopping all resistance.

Well, I don't speak for the American people. I'm a little harder than average. And based on the UNSC resolution, I don't think world opinion has shifted toward the Israelis, and it isn't surprising: not many people will unequivocably support the country who'se name is printed on the bomb if it kills a lot of civilians, even if there is a legitimate target in the middle of the crowd.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

Out of curiosity, will you lock it? or will you allow Evo that decision... perhaps that is an inapproriate question.


What do you think of my opinion that Israel may gain more by refusing to bomb schools and hospitals? It seems that they are trying a precarious balance between seeming aggressive enough for their constituents and cafreful enough for the international community. Which way do you think the balance ought to tip?

 

[Werg22]

What peace means to the eyes of the Israelis isn't the same to the eyes of the Palestinians. A peace, as Israel sees it, cannot prevent it from continuing its policy of territorial expansion, which it has been doing by closing its eyes to Israeli settlement in captured territory and putting everyone before of a fait accompli, burying the idea to a return to pre-1967 boundaries. I suspect this is why the resolution attempt at Camp David failed; it was designed to give Israel this possibility, on top of granting it clear strategic advantages over what would have been Palestinian territory.

As has been made clear by Hamas, to some Palestinians peace means the total disappearance of Israel. The vast majority of the more realistic ones seem to be willing to accept nothing less than a full return to pre-1967 boundaries, although this is almost fantasy for the reason explained above.

As I see it, the two-state resolution is currently unachievable because of a strong conflict of interests between the two sides. I think the way this conflict will end will be very similar to how South Africa has abolished the Apartheid; the idea of a exclusively Jewish state will be dropped and the Palestinians will be integrated as Israeli citizens. Far from being the best solution for the Israelis, but it seems as though there will be a point where there won't be any other choice for real peace.

 

[mheslep]

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.

Well in what context do you mean? Arguably there might be the need to demonstrate willingness to use force esp. with a change in leadership, but surely not to demonstrate strength. Since the six day war, it has been abundantly clear that the IDF is far superior to any other organized military force in their neighbourhood. Para military groups like Hamas and Hezbollah clearly can do little of military consequence, typically they are only able to harass and kill individuals or small groups of civilians, though an Israeli 911 is always possible. I don't see that military action only for demonstration (on or near their own territory) helps the Israelis. For purposes of security, I venture it is more productive to pursue diplomatic means and defensive measures when possible (e.g. the wall), but when and if they reason that military force is required the only justifiable use is to completely eliminate the threat.

 

[BobG]

As I see it, the two-state resolution is currently unachievable because of a strong conflict of interests between the two sides. I think the way this conflict will end will be very similar to how South Africa has abolished the Apartheid; the idea of a exclusively Jewish state will be dropped and the Palestinians will be integrated as Israeli citizens. Far from being the best solution for the Israelis, but it seems as though there will be a point where there won't be any other choice for real peace.

South Africa is the only ethnic civil war where peace was achieved by both groups sharing power in a democratic government. In fact, out of over 120 civil wars since the end of World War II, only 2 were ended by the opposing parties sharing power in a single democratic government (Mozambique was the other, but it's civil war was for political reasons vs ethnic differences). You might make a case for 4 others, but the peaceful resolutions achieved in Lebanon, Sudan, and Zimbabwe only held for around a decade and the jury is still out on Guatemala.

Since most of the even temporary successes were achieved after 1990, it would appear that the world does slowly get smarter and better, but I'd say the odds of successfully integrating Israelis and Palestinians into a single country are pretty long.

It would definitely be historic.

 

[Evo]

Locked.