Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the Palestinians

Professor Martin van Creveld, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is Israel's most prominent military historian. In this interview with Jennifer Byrne he claims that despite the recent increase in Israel's military operations, the huge Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the Palestinians. Transcript:

Byrne: Thanks for joining us tonight on Foreign Correspondent. How has it come to this, Martin... how is it that the mighty Israeli army – one of the world’s most powerful - with its helicopter gunships, with its tanks, with it’s missiles, can be losing to this relatively small, relatively under-armed if fanatical group of Palestinians?

Van Creveld: The same thing has happened to the Israeli army as happened to all the rest that have tried over the last sixty years. Basically it’s always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it’s only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here... the same happened to the French in Algeria... the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan... the same happened to so many people that I can’t even count them.

Byrne: : Martin you used the word ‘cowardly’ yet what we’ve seen tonight – these commando units, the anti-terrorist squads – these aren’t cowardly people.

Van Creveld: I agree with you. They are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.

Byrne: : You are a military historian, but let’s face it the Prime Minister was a general... how could General Sharon – Prime Minister Sharon – be getting it so wrong, by your analysis?

Van Creveld: It’s not a question of personalities, it’s a question of the balance of forces. I’ll use a metaphor that I’ll take from Lao-tzu – the Chinese sage who lived about 2,400 years ago – ‘a sword put into salt water will rust’ – it is only a question of time. And this is happening to the Israeli army and to the Israeli society, almost regardless of who is leading it.

Van Creveld: No they have not yet lost, but they are as far as I can see, well on the way to losing, which is why Israel over the last few weeks has been positively begging the Palestinians for a ceasefire. We have arrived at the point where, if you will, like Johnson in Vietnam, we are constantly asking the other side for a ceasefire, and the other side either will or will not respond as it pleases him – the reason being of course that they have so much less to lose.

Byrne: : The reason being also, in a sense, that it’s what isn’t about, isn’t it? A ceasefire would provide security for the Israelis, which is what they want, but it would not provide statehood for the Palestinians, which is what they want.

Van Creveld: Exactly. The other side will definitely not have a ceasefire without some considerable political achievement. If I were Arafat and the Palestinians, I would not put an end to this intafada, because the way I see it, from the first day of the first intafada they have been winning.

Van Creveld: No. There is one thing that can be done – and that is to put and end to the situation whereby we are the strong fighting the weak, because that is the most stupid situation in which anybody can be.

Van Creveld: Exactly. How do you do that. You do that by A, waiting for a suitable opportunity... B, doing whatever it takes to restore the balance of power between us and the Palestinians... C, removing 90% of the causes of the conflict, by pulling out... and D, building a wall between us and the other side, so tall that even the birds cannot fly over it.... so as to avoid any kind of friction for a long long time in the future.

Byrne: : Well, that’s a tall list. Let’s start with the last one – the wall... I mean, when I was there last month people were talking about a wall but you’re seriously saying this is an option, to build a gigantic wall.... what.... on the old green line, basically – there’s Gaza – there’s the West Bank – and there’s Israel proper, and they shall never be combined?

Van Creveld: “Never” is too much of a word. Nothing lasts forever. But history proves that walls work. The Roman wall – the Limus(?) – worked for hundreds of years... the Great Chinese Wall worked, not forever, but for hundreds of years... the wall in Korea has been working for fity years... the wall between Turks and Greeks in Cyprus is working.... the Berlin Wall worked beautifully.... Unfortunately, the Israeli army insists against all military logic on being present on both sides of the wall. We could formally finish the problem at least in Gaza, in 48 hours, by getting out and building a proper wall. And then of course, if anybody tries to climb over the wall we kill him.

Byrne: : What about the many thousands of extremely belligerent Israeli settlers that would be on the wrong side of the wall?

Van Creveld: If it were up to me, I would tell those people – and you’re quite right, many of them are quite belligerent – look, ladies and gentlemen, you have been magnificent, you have served us well, you have protected us all those years, but this is coming to an end. If you choose to stay, it’s your problem – you are on your own. My guess is that 95% of them will come home.

Byrne: J: What about another scenario, which has been much discussed in recent months – which is one of full military solution? Basically, the Israeli army just goes in... it doesn’t build a wall – it basically blows up the Palestinian home... razes the camps... stops, as it might say, pussyfooting around, and it’s “curtains”?

Van Creveld: Look... a home that has been demolished offers even better shelter than a home that stands intact. The Americans in Vietnam tried it. They killed between two-and-a-half and three million Vietnamese. I don’t see that it helped them much.

Byrne: : Martin, just personally... can you bear the thought of living in Jerusalem behind a wall – as the only way to be safe?

Van Creveld: Quite to the contrary – I came to live in Jerusalem in 1964... three years before the 1967 war. There actually was a wall, and life was wonderful. Nothing ever happened. Jerusalem was the quietest, safest place on earth. More than that, between 1957 and 1967 the number of Israelis who lost their lives as a result of enemy action was just thirty-five. Now we pray for a week in which we shall not lose thirty-five people.

Byrne: : Martin van Creveld, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you.

Freepers, since my last post from a set of traitors denoucing defensive barriers in both the US SW and Israel seems to have been deemed infra dig in the best Republican style perhaps this sober assessment from one of the foremost military commentators of our time will be more acceptable.

While I personally do not agree with the "withraw behind a defensive barrier to pretty much the pre-1967 frontiers" as a panacea for the Israelis Van Creveld makes a clear and well stated arguement for this option. My guess would be that it would only lead to clamor for Israel to retreat to the UN proposed 1947 borders. This drumbeat would be accompanied by determined terrorist attempts to penetrate the frontier defenses just as the Arabs relentlessly did from 1948 to 1956. However,the Israelis are in the cleft of a delemma. They are beset by a foe using a new wrinkle in the classic guerrilla strategy that the IRA pioneered over 80 years ago of striking the vulnerable with the guerilla having no strategic center of gravity to be struck in return. The Arabomurderers apppear to have an endless supply of homicide bombers to send out and Israel has yet to find a strategem to defeat this process.

if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.

This is the kind of bum who would let chaos rule the world.

The Palestinians are not "weak" because they are backed by the entire rich arab world.

What will happen is that The US, Britain, and Israel will clean the Muslim clock and that is the only way to peace. Total victory and unconditional surrender will at last bring the world some peace, finally.

It's gonna happen sooner or later. The longer we wait, the harder it will be.

Let's get it done now. The enemy of civilization is not very strong. The strength of the Soviet army and the Iraqi army were also grossly overexaggerated by spineless liberals.

I am disinclined to take seriously the conclusions of a "historian" whose premises include:

It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people

This is a patently false statement (and a vicious canard) worthy of Ted Turner or Mrs. Ted Turner. Millions of innocents did die in Viet Nam, but only after the US withdrew and the NVA conquered the South.

If professor Van Creveld's brain is full of such misinformation then it would be best to ignore him.

then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot.

Conclusion: if you care to live and are going to be branded as a scoundrel anyway, you might as well go for all or nothing -- I would rather be reviled than dead.

I just google'd Martin Van Crevald and he's been a Palestinian apologist for YEARS! They've been quoting him for years, they love this guy. Some military historian! Harumph!

If you did you also noted he's a pretty well respected military historian. His works are used in our war colleges and on the USMC recommended reading list, probably others. I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand.

He makes some very valid points. Israel will not win a war of attrition, or a cycle of terror/retaliation, which is how they are allowing the Palestinians to define the conflict.

There are other options he doesn't mention, such as a decisive military move to capture and annex a large chunk of the West Bank, resettle the population as needed. Thus far, Israel hasn't the will for that.

Yup, Van Creveld actually is one of the more prominent military historians and authors out there. Hard to avoid him if you read about modern strategy, and he's cited by everyone.

Yup, Van Creveld actually is one of the more prominent military historians and authors out there. Hard to avoid him if you read about modern strategy, and he's cited by everyone.

Just for fun, I checked and he’s still on Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Recommended Reading Lists, Marine Corps Commandant Recommended Reading Lists, and Professional Reading: US Army Course Credits with titles like Airpower and Maneuver Warfare, Command in War Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton, not his historical work. Really not someone whose opinion should be discarded. I'd prefer receiving the message of the article from someone else.

The same happened to the British when they were here... the same happened to the French in Algeria... the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan... the same happened to so many people that I can’t even count them.

False analogy. All these people got tired of fighting and went home because it was less trouble. The Israelis are home and have nowhere to retreat to.

They are beset by a foe using a new wrinkle in the classic guerrilla strategy that the IRA pioneered over 80 years ago of striking the vulnerable with the guerilla having no strategic center of gravity to be struck in return.

In case you hadn't heard, the IRA lost the Irish Civil War. The British were unwilling to be totally brutal. The new Irish Army had no such inhibitions. This type of guerrilla warfare is only effective as long as the militarily dominant side pulls its punches. The author's unexamined preconception is the idea that the Israelis will continue to pull their punches. This may be true, but it is a political decision, not a military one.

The problem with his argument is that it relies too much on perception. If you are a scoundrel for killing someone weaker than you, then of course you are in a lose-lose situation. But if the perception is that you must kill someone who is out to kill you, even if they are weaker, then you are not a scoundrel and you can win.

So another solution to the problem is to tip the balance of public opinion, to overcome the notion that only scoundrels kill the weak. Sometimes the weak deserve to die.

For the British to defeat the IRA would have required a larger commitment over a longer haul with some really unplesant coordinated (not the spastic retaliations of the Balck and Tans) measures targeting populations that supported the guerillas. The Free Staters had, as you note no inhibitions, when it came to dealing with the Republican hold outs. The solution, if it could ever be arranged, based on the Irish scenario, is for Israel is to make some sort of a deal with a faction of Islamothugs and support them with hardware, cash, electronic intel and when the real crunch came IDF heavy forces as they wage an intra-Arab civil war on the anti-treaty faction. The trick is to find the set of thugs who are approachable and will deliver the goods.

The trick is to find the set of thugs who are approachable and will deliver the goods.

Agreed. Also assuming there is any such group that would command enough support among their own people to carry it off. Israeli experience with similar attempts in S. Lebanon is not encouraging, even tho they had a religious division to exploit there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.