Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the Palestinians

ABC WORLD IN FOCUS ^ | March 20, 2002 | Martin van Creveld

[SJackson]

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.

While his conclusion may rely on perception, I think he’s correct that there is an inherent bias (at least in Judeo-Christian nations) which mitigates against the use of overwhelming force against a “weaker” foe.

IMO, Israel should mobilize, establish defensible borders deep within the West Bank, and build their wall. Or reoccupy the territories and reestablish a military government, and get on with the decades long process of building a civilized society. “Public opinion” aside, I think the author would suggest that Israel herself cannot generate the will to use this level of overwhelming force against an “unequal” enemy.

Equality you should view in terms of the threat, not hardware. If the Palestinians approach a point where they are perceived as threatening Israel’s existence, they will be “equal” and force will be unleashed. Personally, while they are winning now I think they’ll overplay their hand, the author doesn’t.

I think you can view our refusal to decisively cut the Ho Chi Minh trail on the ground, or invade the north, or complete our defeat of Sadaam in the Gulf War in this perspective, American unwillingness to use overwhelming force on an “unequal”, in terms of threat, foe.

I think this is a factor in what seem to me to be an anemic attempt to root out the sources of terror worldwide. As 9/11 fades, the threat diminishes, and our will erodes. I’d prefer to see us to begin taking action now, without another attack elevating our enemies to our level.

I don't think the problem is public opinion, it's a sense of fairness embedded within our society.

[American in Israel]

For every israeli jew killed in a suicide attack, 100 or so palestinians should be relocated from the west bank to gaza.

Won't work, they are streaming over the borders faster than that. You will have to raise that to 1000 a day to get ahead.

Most of the Arabs that were in Palestine when Arafat set up the PLO have immigrated elsewhere. Less than half of the origional population has stayed on under his "leadership". Yet the population is growing leaps and bounds, mostly military age men for some "strange" reason.

[ArGee]

I think that Martin has forgotten that even the weak can hurt the strong - just not defeat him.

He wants to believe that Israel is being made a goat worldwide, but that is only the case in the European press.

He is right about one thing, though. We were stupid in Vietnam to attempt to slowly increase the level of force we were willing to use until the Vietnamese government went to the bargaining table, then we would pull back again until talks broke down. That's no way to create peace.

The only way to create peace is to beat the agressors so bad that they will eat flaming excrement before they will think of attacking you again.

In other words you have to fight, and win, if you want peace.

Shalom.

[philosofy123]

This van Crevel guy appears to be a deep thinker, and a philosopher. I share some of his views. I guess as a civilized country, and a democracy you are put against a high slandered of conduct. The savages are not expected to behave like human! Therefore, Israel will always have a public relation problem worldwide to deal with. The French are not anti-Semitics; they are simply expecting humanitarian conduct from the IDF against the savages. If you look around there is a considerable sense of uneasiness about a powerful military combating armless people, regardless if they are murderer/ savages!

[ArGee]

If you look around there is a considerable sense of uneasiness about a powerful military combating armless people, regardless if they are murderer/ savages!

Forgive me, but I have done some looking around. Where is this going on that you know of?

Shalom.

[monkeyshine]

I tend to agree with your prescription. The wall they are building a good idea, if poorly placed (it should encompass as many settlements as possible, even if that means annexing some Palestinian towns (not cities)).

But I am reminded of the old addage "don't bring a knife to a gunfight". In my sense of fairness, if you bring a knife with the intent to murder and get shot instead, it's fair. This is what the Palestinians have done. We used overwhelming force on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan both -- without much condemnation. People understood. But in the case of the Jewish state, the outcry against even moderate defensive measures is prophetically biased against the Jewish state.

[Bryan]

Withdrawal to any pre-1967 borders would be suicidal. One day, if you're ever in Israel, hire a guide to take you on a tour of the Golan Heights. This is technically Syrian terrirory, seized by Israel in the 1967 war. It's never been relinquished.

On your tour of the Golan Heights, you'll notice how the whole city of Jerusalem is spread out beneath you, and what a wonderful view you have. Then try imagining that you are a forward observer for a Syrian artillery brigade, ready to train down death and destruction on a million Jewish civilians.

Israel must never give up the Golan Heights and it must never give up the West Bank.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Kill the terrorists' families.

We saw them celebrating, laughing, cheering, rejoicing in their dirt streets, on the day the World Trade Center was destroyed. Let's give them something to cry about.

The firebombing of Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, Kiel, Bremen, Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe and a dozen other German and Japanese cities, gutting them and inflicting 800,000 civilian casualties, was ordered by Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat.

The use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, causing 115,000 civilian deaths, was ordered by Harry Truman, a Democrat.

The carpet-bombing of Hanoi, causing over 100,000 civilian casualties, was ordered by Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat. Johnson also gave the orders that started the Phoenix Program, in which Viet Cong sympathizers and thousands of their family members were assassinated.

What I propose is a carefully targeted series of actions against no more than 80 civilians. There were 19 terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Four members of each family should be sufficient to send a very clear message to those contemplating future attacks against us. Total war, and the killing of innocent civilians, wouldn't be a first for the United States. The Democratic Party led the way in the mass killing of over a million civilians.

Of course, in each of those wars, we were not the first to bomb civilians simply for the sake of bombing civilians. The Germans mercilessly pounded London and Coventry, and the Japanese did the same to Nanking.

But it was Americans, on the orders of Democratic presidents, who turned it into a science.

American meteorologists carefully tracked the weather conditions over central Germany and they successfully predicted an "air inversion" over the city of Dresden. This unique weather system would multiply the effectiveness of fire-bombing exponentially. The results of that bombing were dramatized in Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut.

And then, of course, there was the atomic bomb. And the other atomic bomb.

We have faced suicidal enemies before. I've often drawn a comparison between the Al-Qaeda jihadi and the Japanese kamikaze. They are eager to die for the sake of victory. They are taught that to destroy themselves while killing large numbers of Americans is a guaranteed ticket to paradise.

The Japanese, the Germans and even the Italians sent men on missions during World War II that were, for all practical purposes, suicidal. These were fanatical enemies and the length of time these nations resisted before surrendering was an accurate yardstick of their fanaticism.

The Italians quit early. Germany and especially Japan were more tenacious. We firebombed and gutted their cities. We killed over four million of them, both combatants and civilians. Every factory and shipyard was reduced to rubble. Every ship they had larger than a destroyer was either crippled or sunk.

At the end of it all, Japan stood alone. We had dozens of aircraft carriers cruising up and down the Japanese coast, launching airstrikes and pounding everything that moved. We brought in over 1000 heavy bombers to pound everything that didn't move. Fresh from defeating Germany, the Royal Navy sent a dozen aircraft carriers of its own from the Atlantic to join in.

Still the Japanese refused our constant demands for surrender.

Then we nuked them. And they still didn't surrender.

Then we nuked them again. Then they surrendered.

I'm not advocating nuclear warfare against Muslim nations, or the indiscriminate firebombing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, as three different Democratic presidents ordered in other wars. That would be simply too barbaric.

But today Germany, Italy and Japan are among our most reliable allies. They are rebuilt. They are industrialized and they enjoy high standards of living. In particular, Japan was controlled by suicidal warriors who had sworn to destroy us, who were eager to die for the sake of victory.

But we convinced them to surrender. There were two things that we did to achieve this goal. First, we extracted a price that even a suicidal warrior was unwilling to pay for victory. Second, we made it apparent that even after paying such a dreadful price, victory was impossible for him.

We know who the suicidal terrorists of 9/11 were and we know where they lived. Fourteen of the 19 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, a nation that is purportedly friendly with us. This is suggested not as punishment for the families of terrorists, even though they may hate America just as much as their sons did on 9/11. This is suggested solely as a deterrent against future terrorism.

We must extract a price that they are unwilling to pay.

NEVER, EVER FORGET

[SJackson]

I tend to agree with your prescription. The wall they are building a good idea, if poorly placed (it should encompass as many settlements as possible, even if that means annexing some Palestinian towns (not cities)).

I’ll come back to it, but unless the wall is built on a clearly defensible line, the land annexed, and the population pacified, the wall will be a disaster. It will represent the of I think the furthest extent of Israel’s, and must be built with that in mind.

But I am reminded of the old addage "don't bring a knife to a gunfight". In my sense of fairness, if you bring a knife with the intent to murder and get shot instead, it's fair.

Naah, here’s a couple of adages , from someone who would understand this war.

......................

"This is a political war, and it calls for the utmost discrimination in killing. The best weapon in killing is a knife."

The best weapon for killing is a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The next best is a rifle. The worst is an airplane, and after that the worst is artillery,"

Col. John Paul Vann

......................

We used overwhelming force on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan both -- without much condemnation. People understood. But in the case of the Jewish state, the outcry against even moderate defensive measures is prophetically biased against the Jewish state.

I’d suggest that we didn’t use overwhelming force against Iraq, Yugoslavia (I guess, don’t know what we were doing there), and Afghanistan is a work in progress. I say that not based on hardware, but the fact that we didn’t use a level of force adequate to achieve a clearly defined objective, for example in Iraq the removal of Sadaam as a threat. We did drop a lot of bombs, still do.

Clearly there bias against Israel, and opinion can be damaging, but thus far Israel hasn’t taken the steps to end this war, and I agree with van Creveld that the cause lies in a cultural unwillingness to extract that large a toll on an “inferior” enemy.

One thing that many posters gloss over is that, short of, at the end of the process Israel will have a neighbor with a potentially hostile population.

They can be walled off if the borders are defensible.

Or they can be reoccupied and pacified, a long, long process. If you were to read some of Vann’s comments or Gen "Brute" Krulak’s from the early-mid 60's, you’d see the risks of this course of action, and also the solutions. Over a few decades it could work.

BTW, the knife analogy could start with Israel killing terrorists (they know who and where they are) quietly, individually, one or two at a time if necessary, wherever they are, in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, a resort in Cypress, and whenever they can be found as they did with the Munich killers.

[E Rocc]

Forget the old borders! Why not build the wall where ever they want and expel the palistinians? Then expand as needed to shelter settlements.

Hmmm...might have something to do with the fact that there's not a nation in the world (including the US) that would support them if they violated international law so grossly.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Withdrawal to any pre-1967 borders would be suicidal. One day, if you're ever in Israel, hire a guide to take you on a tour of the Golan Heights. This is technically Syrian terrirory, seized by Israel in the 1967 war. It's never been relinquished.

On your tour of the Golan Heights, you'll notice how the whole city of Jerusalem is spread out beneath you, and what a wonderful view you have. Then try imagining that you are a forward observer for a Syrian artillery brigade, ready to train down death and destruction on a million Jewish civilians.

Israel must never give up the Golan Heights and it must never give up the West Bank.

Your right about Golan for the precise reasons you describe (actually it's all of Israel that can be seen) but wrong about the West Bank. There's no such compelling strategic reason for Israel to have to keep it.

Intentionally killing innocent people for the actions of their relatives is what communists and other criminals do.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

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.

No, because there would be a treaty recognizing the 1967 borders that all concerned would sign. Such clamor would be dismissed as inconsequential.

The 1967 borders won't come back anyway. No way does Israel give up the Golan, and giving up more than the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem and the mosques on Mount Moriah is very unlikely.

-Eric

[balrog666]

Hmmm...might have something to do with the fact that there's not a nation in the world (including the US) that would support them if they violated international law so grossly.

What international law? They already own the West Bank in everybody's eyes except the USA and the arabs.

[balrog666]

No, because there would be a treaty recognizing the 1967 borders that all concerned would sign. Such clamor would be dismissed as inconsequential.

Signed by whom?
Enforced by whom?
That guarantees what? to who?
That constrains the palestinians how?
That gives Israel "what" that they don't have now?

Dream on..

[bribriagain]

re post #10: Good post.

[E Rocc]

Hmmm...might have something to do with the fact that there's not a nation in the world (including the US) that would support them if they violated international law so grossly.

What international law? They already own the West Bank in everybody's eyes except the USA and the arabs.

Try the Geneva Convention, and you're wrong about everyone but us and the Arabs. Hell, the USA is the most pro-Israel nation in the world right now, and our official position is the squatter camps (aka "settlements") need to go.

As for the rest of the world....in 1999 there was a meeting of the Geneva Convention signatories. All attended except the US and Israel. There was a unanimous vote that the rules of the Convention regarding occupied territories applied to the West Bank. Those include bans on collective punishment, wholesale expulsion of the civilian population, and transferring your own civilians into occupied areas.

-Eric

[thoughtomator]

It really pains me to agree with you, but it seems the only fitting response is indeed to kill the families of the bombers. It is the only measure I can think of that would make a bomber think twice before he goes on his mission. It would create a profound barrier between those who indoctrinate/equip and the bombers themselves. Even if they did believe Jews were the enemies of all that is good and right in the world, would they sacrifice their whole families as easily as they sacrifice themselves? The families clearly share responsibility for the creation of an environment where such behavior is not only acceptable but celebrated.

[SJackson]

...transferring your own civilians into occupied areas.

You meant to say forcibly transferring your own civilians into occupied areas., didn't you? I admit, it defeats your arguement, but the truth is the truth, no matter how distasteful. Or are you suggesting that Israel forces Jews there at the point of a gun?

BTW, just from whom is Israel occupying those territories? They were offered to the Arabs as a homeland in 47, but they turned them down cold. Egypt doesn't claim Gaza. Jordan doesn't claim the West Bank. There is no recognized state claiming those lands as we speak. It's Israel's right to annex them if she wishes.

If you're looking for illegal population transfers I'd suggest looking places like Rwanda, Tibet, or the Balkans. The UN isn't.

BTW, a meeting of the conention signatories without all the signatories and with out signatures is as useful as the new war crimes tribunal, which I assume you assert Americans are subject to.

[balrog666]

Try the Geneva Convention, and you're wrong about everyone but us and the Arabs.

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply here. If you think it does, tell me the nation-states involved.

Hell, the USA is the most pro-Israel nation in the world right now,

Sentiment is irrelevent. Most countries recognize the West Bank as Israeli territory and have their embassies in Jerusalem. Except us and the arabs.

... and our official position is the squatter camps (aka "settlements") need to go.

Which squatter camps and go where? What's your point here?
And tell me who gives a sh!t what our "official" position is! If you want to know what our real position is, just follow the money.

As for the rest of the world....in 1999 there was a meeting of the Geneva Convention signatories

Oh, yeah. That's about as binding, enforceable, and as useless as teats on a boar.

Got anything useful to add to the discussion?

[Stultis]

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.

Whatever. It doesn't change the fact that his argument here -- or, rather, his asserstion -- is unsupported by reason or relevant analogy. Seriously, what is his argument? If read carefully, I don't think you find one. He just idiotically asserts that the Pallies are strong because they are weak. Huh?

Note that all his analogies are to nations that were fighting foreign wars, and lost the will to fight against a determined enemy. The goal of war is indeed to destroy the enemy's will to fight. As for the Pallies, the only effective means they have found to fight Israel is by means of terror attacks directed against the hearth and home. The problem is that killing your enemy's women and children invariably strengthens his will to fight.

The Pallies would do much better (i.e. have some chance of weakening rather than strengthening their enemy's resolve) if they rigorously restricted their attacks only to Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza, but their fanatacism does not permit of such restraint. This, btw, is also their key weakness as military opponents of Israel: their potency depends entirely on maintaining hyper elevated levels of hatred and fanatacism against the Jews, and, one might add, the overwhelming obsession with victim hood that is the primary psychological feature of nearly all terrorists whatever their nationality or religion.

Such an extreme and debilitating psychological state is not stable under most circumstances. It has only been maintained so long among the Palestinians due to the support of their cause from the rest of the Arab world. Of course the Arab world has "supported their cause" by purposefully keeping them stuffed into squalid refugee camps, propagandizing them with hatred, keeping them focused on Israel rather than their own sorry state, and defending and underwritting the thugs and gangsters that "lead" them by driving them to destruction and siphoning off their resources to Swiss bank accounts.

Any change of affairs that would cause the Palestinians to more or less permanantly shift their focus away from the Jews, and toward their own prospects for a better way of life, will undercut the fanaticism that drives their will to fight. Say, for instance, that the U.S. topples Sadam and manages to establish a successful democracy in Iraq. Suppose that this triggers a democratic revolution in Iran. The Palestinians, I think, really do want a democracy in the end, and they have the unique experience in the Arab world of having been able to observe one, in Israel, at close hand. If other Arab or regional Islamic countries start to go democratic, one can expect the Palestinians to become jealous of someone besides the Jews. And once they begin to think in terms of putting their own interests ahead of destroying or damaging Israel, the war will be over.

Granted the Palestinians may win in the end by sustaining their fanatical attrition-warfare terrorism, and eventually destroying the Israeli economy -- and thus the Israelis' ability to field technologically state of the art military forces -- if you want to call that "winning". (Palestinian economic viability is dependent on Israel, and their "victory" would bequeath them a Somalia-like hell on earth.) But to say, as Martin does, that the Pallies will inevitably, or even probably, prevail is simply stupid.

It is not an easy thing to maintain that level of fanatacism. It takes hard work, and outside help. If the Arab world, for instance, ever decides to reconcile itself to the existance of Israel, and the Palestinians try to nevertheless maintain the conflict, they literally won't stand a chance. Their ability to damage Israel depends on many circumstances that are subject to change.

[LivingNet]

Funny...that is not what my Bible says will happen.