Hamas Defeats Israeli Blockade. What Next?
The Israeli government keeps repeating the same mistakes, the big ones and the small ones. The biggest one of all is believing that it can “win” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by making the Palestinians “cry uncle.” That is what the economic blockade of Gaza is all about.
It is not about the shelling of Sderot. Israel began applying sanctions on the Palestinians immediately following the Hamas legislative elections of June 2006. Those were the elections that the United States insisted upon (over the objections of both the Israeli government and the Palestinians). Sharansky had convinced President Bush that all elections are good by definition. So the Palestinians were pressured into holding them, voted “wrong,” and the United States, Israel (including Sharansky, of course), and the Europeans all decided that the Palestinians had to be punished. Almost immediately, Congress moved to cut off aid.
The blockade has only deepened ever since, especially after radical Palestinians in Gaza increased their rocket fire at Sderot. In the past two years 45 Israelis were killed in terror attacks while 810 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by the IDF in response. Add to the toll on Gaza the cutoff of most foreign aid, the ban of virtually all imports from Israel and abroad, and finally the power cuts, which left Gaza dark and freezing, and you have a pretty bleak picture.
And what exactly did all these punitive measures accomplish? Nothing. They didn’t make Israel safer. After all, you do not have to block the import of cement and flour to keep out weapons and explosives, which, in any case, were coming in through the tunnels from Egypt.
All they accomplished was to make Palestinian life miserable in the hope that misery would produce a popular uprising that would overthrow Hamas. In theory, the Palestinians would blame Hamas, not Israel and America, for their misery. Naturally that did not happen.
Even if Hamas was growing less popular due to the shortages, that all changed this week when Hamas succeeded in ending the Israeli blockade by destroying the wall separating Gaza from Egypt. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were suddenly free to purchase the necessities (and luxuries, no doubt) that had been denied them. Israel no longer had any control of whom and what could enter Gaza (a dangerous situation which quickly produced an influx of sophisticated weapons) and Hamas was suddenly transformed into the hero. In other words, the Israelis produced precisely the situation they did not want. They kept out home heating oil and sugar while ultimately allowing Hamas to smuggle in God only knows what!
As of now, it is unclear what will happen next. Some Israelis, desperate that Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s fuel cutoff not appear to have produced the worst possible situation for Israel, are claiming that this week’s developments are all for the good. Egypt, they say, is now responsible for Gaza. “We have now completed the Gaza withdrawal. The Gazans are on their own and to hell with them,” one Israeli told a reporter.
There is some truth to that, but not much. Israel cannot divest itself of responsibility for Gaza simply by declaring it. Is Israel prepared to let Gaza control all its borders, its air space, and its sea lanes? Is it prepared to rule out military intervention in Gaza in response to continued attacks? Of course not. Israel wants to divest itself of all humanitarian responsibility for Gaza while maintaining control. It just does not work that way. Responsibility and control are two sides of the same coin.
It’s true that the week’s developments are in keeping with Ariel Sharon’s concept of unilateral withdrawal, the concept that produced the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops from Gaza.
But unilateral withdrawal failed. It failed because unilateralism is no way to solve any international conflict. Had Israel negotiated the Gaza withdrawal with Mahmoud Abbas, as Abbas wanted, there would have been a signed and binding agreement between Israelis and Palestinians governing Gaza’s future. As it was, Israel just picked up and left, handing Hamas the opportunity to increase its support by claiming that it drove Israel out, weakening Abbas and setting the stage for the shelling of Sderot and the ultimate Hamas takeover of Gaza.
As grandma used to say, “let that be a lesson to you.”
The lesson is that we are no longer living in an era in which major powers can dictate to the powerless. Winston Churchill could not, today, dictate that the area east of the Jordan would no longer be Israel/Palestine but rather Transjordan. Nor could France and the United Kingdom draw lines on a map and call this acreage Syria and that one Lebanon.
No, in 2008, the only way to resolve disputes between nations is through direct negotiations. That means that all the problems posed by Hamas in Gaza can only be resolved through negotiations that will end the Israeli occupation, create a West Bank/Gaza Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its shared capital and ensure the security of both Israelis and Palestinians. As the Israelis say over and over again, it needs a partner. In fact, it has one in Mahmoud Abbas. But, being essentially powerless, he is not a partner Israel can hold responsible for very much.
That needs to change. And that means moving on President Bush’s goal of establishing a Palestinian state by the end of his term. That state will not be a gift to the Palestinians, nor will it be a reward for good behavior. What it will be is a solution to a problem that plagues Israelis and Palestinians alike (while seriously damaging America’s interests worldwide). It’s been two months since Annapolis. It’s time for some urgency, especially now that we see mobs taking events into their own hands.
Is that what we want? Or is it the full-scale invasion of Gaza by the IDF which, according to press reports, Barak is considering?
Either way, Hamas will come out ahead. The big losers this week were Israel, Mahmoud Abbas, and Egypt. Hamas won big-time. Nice job, Defense Minister Barak.
Comments (116)
The Israelis know that when they're the most isolated and under the most pressure, they're the most united--and somehow they think the exact opposite will be true of the Palestinians. I've never understood that.
You can probably add the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood as a winner beside Hamas.
January 26, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
After watching the Palestinians break through the border with Egypt I have a question that perhaps someone can answer. Why is the "blockade" of Gaza only an Israeli blockade when Gaza shares a border with Egypt? Why, if Palestinians were supposedly freezing from lack of fuel, didn't Egypt give them fuel? Why, if medical supplies and equipment were lacking, didn't Egypt supply that to them as well? Why is it Israel's responsibility to supply a people who are sworn to destroy it while their Arab "brothers" sit and tut-tut from the sidelines?
Leaving aside the question of whether the Israeli closure of all trade with Gaza is a good idea or not, the question I keep coming back to is that Israel could not enforce a total blockade of Gaza without Egypt's assistance since Egypt controls one of the borders. Yet the blame for any hardship that Gazans face is exclusively placed on Israel. What's more, it is clear that the Egyptians turn a blind eye to the rampant weapons smuggling that goes on through the tunnels under the border. How else could the Palestinians manage it? So for Egypt it is the best of all worlds. They get to bleed their enemy (yes, despite the nominal "peace", it is clear much of Egypt regards Israel as an enemy) and any blame for Israel's understandable reaction to this intolerable state of affairs falls exclusively on Israel. From their point of view, what's not to like?
But can someone explain to me why Israel lets them get away with it?
January 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably because we (the US) pressure Egypt in that regard. After Israel they are our most important (only) ally in the region. It might be as simple as "we won't say a word about human rights if you're not gratuitously supporting Gaza."
But can someone explain to me why Israel lets them get away with it?
Maybe because they know they've done a lot of damage to Gaza that they shouldn't have. And of course, obligatory anti-semite repellent (though Palestinians are ALSO semitic) some of the damage is appropriate response to violent attacks.
January 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel doesn't "let Egypt get away with" participating in the blockade of Gaza, Israel encourages it.
January 26, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad.
"But can someone explain to me why Israel lets them get away with it?"
There have been real tensions between Israel and Egypt prior to this situation due to Israeli efforts to have US aid to Egypt reduced. Those efforts were carried out by those at the highest levels in Israel's Foreign Ministry. Mubarak was incensed at those very public efforts.
In addition, several months ago, Egypt began to take steps to end the 30year freeze in diplomatic relations with Iran. The Saudis have also been open to Iran; both countries have eschewed the roles assigned to them by DC and TA to be Arab bulwarks against the alleged hegemonic ambitions of Iran.
While some pro-Israeli advocates and Israeli rightists believe that the treaty between Israel and Egypt is essentially worthles because it's a "cold peace", the Israeli government is not about to completely destroy one of the few formal relationships they have with an Arab neighbor.
I've also seen speculation that Israel would welcome Egpytian responsibility for Gaza in terms of supplying the needs of the infrastructure and humanitarian essentials. Originally, Egypt co-operated with the Israeli demands to close the border, but the situation has shifted as the embargo has tightened as the IDF forays into Gaza has increased the tempo of deaths and destruction there.
Israel simply can't afford to completely alienate Egypt as the Egyptians serve as intermediaties with other Arab states and entities on issues critical to Israel.
January 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel still effectively controls the border and it is Israel that ordered the border shut, not Egypt. Under the arrangements made when Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip in September 2005, the EU was supposed to monitor the border and control the crossing points (in cooperation with Fatah). Egypt agreed (at Israel's insistence) to station soldiers at the border to prevent arms smuggling primarily. After Hamas was elected, however, Fatah and the EU were no longer able to control the border and Israel retook control of the crossing points (rather than giving the border to Hamas). Egypt has cooperated to some degree with Israel as it is obligated to under the agreements, but has occasionally allowed the border (away from the official crossing sites) to open despite Israeli protests.
It's a pretty big stretch to try to blame Egypt for the closure. The border is only 7.5 miles long and is mostly walled off. The crossing points are controlled by the IDF at present, not Egypt. Egypt could only open the border by violating its agreements with Israel and the international community and (probably) by attacking the IDF forces at the border.
January 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outside aid to Gaza comes from UN relief programs. Israel built all the walls and fences around Gaza, including the fence on the Gaza-Egypt border. The population centers of Gaza are in the north of the strip. If USA/Israel wanted to re-route supplies paid for through the UN through Egypt, they could have done so. Clearly the Israeli preference is to control the aid by having it cross at their own check-points.
January 26, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The simple answer comes from the UN Geneva Conference held on July 16, 1999, where Israel was found to be responsible for upholding the Fourth Geneva Convention within the Occupied Territories;
January 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is the occupying power. As such it is responsible for Gaza and the West Bank. At such time as Israel gives up its control of Gaza's borders, sea lanes and airspace, it is responsible for the people there.
This is not a state of war between France and Germany. It is an uprising by an occupied people.
Israel and the US, at Israel's behest, has required Egypt to seal the border.
January 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel doesn't not occupy Gaza and has no responsibility for Gaza. Hamas led government of Gaza declared a war with Israel. The stated goal of this war is the total destruction of Israel. This is like war between US and Japan. Until unconditional surrender of Japan, US didn’t provide fuel or food to Japan. Nobody should expect Israel to behave differently.
January 26, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Empire of Japan was never a direct threat to the continental United States, a few balloon attacks and submarine shellings notwithstanding. Japan, however, did inflict major casualties on US allies, possessions, and troops in the field.
As opposed to Hamas, Japan began an offensive without a declaration of war. In fairness to them, they did attempt to break diplomatic relations and send ultimata to countries they were about to attack, but, in the case of the US, the Washington embassy staff took too long to prepare the documents, and the attack came without any form of official warning [Note 1].
Samuel Eliot Morison titled the shortened version of "US Naval Operations in WWII" the "Two-Ocean War". While the US fleet, in total, was larger than that of the Imperial Japanese Navy, the US had to split its forces between the Atlantic and Pacific, so the Japanese could have local superiority. At the start of the war, Japanese naval aviation was at a much higher level of training than that of the US, and the US had not gone through industrial mobilization.
Still, what Churchill called not the end, not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning took place at Midway, about six months after Pearl Harbor. The US was outnumbered at the battle, with three fleet carriers [Note 2] to four, and managed an underdog victory. It would not have managed that victory if RADM Spruance had done what the Japanese wanted, and continued his attack into the massively superior Japanese battle fleet. Spruance, as the saying goes, knew when to hold and when to fold.
So, let's consider Midway. 4:3 superiority in carriers, one badly damaged at the start. 7:0 superiority in battleships. Critical intelligence superiority by the US.
Now, examine the correlation between Hamas and Israel. Not counting combat-capable trainers, Israel has approximately 250 F-16 modern fighter-bombers, 37 F-15 air superiority fighters, and 25 F-15E deep strike fighters. It has about 90 Apache and Kiowa attack and armed scout helicopters. It has around 200 Jericho ballistic missiles, which probably can't hit a target as close as Gaza, so if Israel did want to deliver a nuclear strike to Gaza, it would probably have to drop nuclear bombs from its 275 or so nuclear-rated fighter-bombers.
These counts are misleadingly low, when presenting the ratio of Gazan (hell, throw in the West Bank) combat aircraft to Israeli aircraft. Israel also has an appreciable number of "force multiplication" special purpose aircraft, including AWACS command & control platforms, electronic warfare, signal intelligence, and tanker aircraft. We won't count several hundred transports and miscellaneous aircraft not usually considered combat capable -- although Israel, as well as the US, has C-130 transports that are used to drop the largest conventional bombs in the US arsenal.
Umm...what was the size of the Palestinian Air Force again? Well, no matter. The strength of the Palestinians is clearly in their Army. Clearly, if the goal is the total destruction of Israel, Hamas really must do something about those 4,000 main battle tanks, 10,000-plus infantry fighting vehicles, and 1,600 artillery pieces. Poor Israel is a little light in artillery, so, with its three corps-sized combat commands, has to make do with fighter-bombers and attack helicopters.
Israel also has an operational theater ballistic missile defense system, with two levels of defense using the Arrow and the PAC-3. For whatever reason, it isn't using the developmental Skyguard and Nautilus MTHEL systems against the mighty Palestinian Qassims and GRADs. Poor Israel, as far as I know, only has AN/TPQ-36 and -37 counterartillery radars and a local electro-optical system, and might be a little light in short-range air defense radars like the AN/MPQ-84.
Israel maintains a position of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
Damn! I forgot the Israeli naval forces, which clearly would be crushed by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. The Palestinians have ships, submarines, and naval aviation, stronger than the 6th Fleet right?
No. The stated goal is as plausible as the time I babysat a bratty four-year old who kicked me in the shin and said "I'll kill you, doo-doo head." He objected strenuously to my holding him in the air, such that his kicking feet thrashed the air. Eventually, he calmed down.
Why? I offered dinner to the four-year old, and had faster reactions than he could throw his peanut butter sandwich. Good thing, as his mother, insanely, had white carpets and a small child.
To finish your historical analysis, a state of declared war existed between the Empire of Japan and the United States of America. The state of relations between Palestine and Israel is complex and subject to international agreement, but Israel is essentially in the role of what the Geneva Conventions call the Occupying Power, even though it does not occupy the immense land mass of Gaza. It does, however, maintain an air and naval blockade, which, in customary international law, is an act of war.
Under the Conventions, the Occupying Power is, in fact, responsible for providing food and fuel to the civilian population. It can shoot combatants, but Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel has ratified, forbids collective punishment.
Would you explain a bit more how Hamas is going to win its war to the death with Israel?
--
Howard
[Note 1] Ironically, the US cryptanalysts were reading the Japanese diplomatic traffic more efficiently than the Embassy, so the Secretary of State had read the ultimatum long before the Japanese had finished typing part 14 of the 14-part message.
[Note 2] The damaged USS Yorktown, in an engineering near-miracle, had been turned around, by the Pearl Harbor shipyards, in 72 hours rather than 6 months. She was not in full operational condition, and was lost to the Japanese at Midway.
January 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Korean War was a "police action", and you call this light harassing fire a war? May you never know the intensity of a serious war. Those "deadly" rockets have approximately the power of a hand grenade. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more volume of fire on a busy Mischief Night in Detroit.
There's also a concept of proportional response in customary international law, but Israel apparently doesn't understand it. Incidentally, what international conventions on warfare have the Palestinians ratified? The Israelis?
I suppose it's a fair exchange, since neither (at least, I don't think Palestine has) ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas most likley wont destroy Israel - although this is indeed their stated goal. However, just because someone wont kill you doesnt mean you shouldnt defend yourself against a good beating.
I actually think MJ is wrong. I live in Israel and i do not get the sense at all as MJ wrote that Israelis feel the blockade will make the Palestinians surrender etc. etc. I dont think the government thinks that either. Unfortunately politics as always is involved and if Olmert and family want to keep their seat some actions had to be taken.
In the rest of the world you likley do not see daily on the news mothers and fathers in tears of fear from some "hand grenade" (as you put it) hitting their home or their childrens nursery. Or tlittle kids saying they dont want a qassam to hit their home and they dont like the sounds of the sirens.
But thats what we see here. And i dont know if you know Israelis well, but they do not like to be what in Israel we call "friarim".
To see the governmenet, after it has dismantled it settlemetns, allow rockets (or hand grenades - whatever) to be fired into its cities landing in peoples homes, childrens schools etc. without doing anything about it is not something the Israeli people can handle. As a result, the Israel givernement needs to show the people that it is taking some action.
As the Lebanon war proved, Israel with all of its might is incapable of stopping these rockets/hand grenades through military means (ie. air force, anti missle etc) and therefore feels it is necessary to take other action which has been agreed here amounts to collective punishment. But this is done to show the people in Sderot etc. that as long as youre scared and suffering they will too (you will not be a "friar") and not because of any illusion that this will suddenly make Hamas and the Palestinians love Israel. Im not saying this makes the decision right. Im saying that the reason for it in my opinion is different than what MJ writes above. Its political survival as opposed to any strategy of bringing Palestinians to their knees (although there are certainly those who do believe that to be the only solution as well).
Anyways, I doubt that you Howard, with all your knowledge of the military would take as easily as you do here, grenades flying every day into your neighborhood. Just imagine leaving your toddler at a nursery knowing that a day before greandes hit that nursery and knowing that more grenades were certainly going to hit again the next day. As for a proportianate response, Israel cant start slinging grenades randonly into Gaza - i suppose that would be proportiante though, wouldnt it? I know you can go off now for a page and half on what Israel's military can do - and with all that knowledge of yours i wont be able to agree or diasagree - but i do think, as a prior soldier in the IDF (i left combat very early), that if you were to talk with someone that did have the same military knowledge you would understand better what Israel in fact does do, why it does it and why it cant do some other things that you think it should be doing.
January 27, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel doesn't seem interested in techniques that interfere with the rocket fire. Please accept that I'm not trying to overwhelm with technology, but one reasonable approach, keeping the rockets in Gaza or at least promptly killing their crews, would be to install RLS (it goes onto tall towers so it can look over buildings), and then fly armed unmanned aerial vehicles (drones or UAVs as you prefer) over Gaza. I haven't the slightest problem with rules of engagement that allow firing on the suspicion of something being a rocket-carrying truck, much less a launcher being set up or used. UAVs, incidentally, do not act autonomously; a human being is able to look through their TV cameras and make the final decision to shoot. But, from my perspective, the people in Sderot are "friarim". Other populations, in other countries, have been under much more devastating attack, and not broken their morale. They also have not spent the time complaining to the news media, although electronic news was not as prevalent. Still, the people on Quemoy and Matsu, who to some extent were there for national strategic purposes, didn't spend as much time whining as they did digging in and living underground.
In WWII, when Britain came under attack with German V-1 cruise missiles and V-2 medium-range ballistic missiles, their effort turned to destroying the launchers and factories, and, in the case of the V-1, learning to knock them down. While these weapons were no more accurate than a Qassim, they carried far more explosive. My reaction to that is there are only two responses: move away, or use the best technology available that specifically works against the threat. Collective punishment is not an answer.
At this point, I am thoroughly sick of both sides. -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 27, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
lh25 writes:
This is written as if no-one else in the World has to face the possibility of being murdered. The reality is that a resident of New York City is far more likely to be murdered than an Israeli is to be killed in a terrorist attack.
In 2007, there were 492 homicides in New York City which has a population of 8.2M. The
Since the start of the second intifida in 2000, Btselem reports that 705 Israelis have been killed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The combined Israeli population, including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, is 7.2M.
It does not require a calculator to recognize that the average New Yorker had more chance of being murdered last year alone than the average Israeli has had of being killed by a terrorist attack over the last eight years
January 27, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry if im missing something but whats the purpose of that? Since everyone has the possibility of facing murder those living in Sderot should not be anymore scared than someone living in NY?
comon you cant really think that. would you really be so brave if grenades were being thrown in your city on a daily basis and say hey, these grenades flying, no big deal, theyve only killed 2 so far and me and my kids have a better chance of getting killed in NY?
anyhow the point of me mentioning it in the first palce was really just to give a picture of what we see in Israel and the pressure put on the government by the people to take actions because of those pictures. you might not think the Isralis are right for putting such pressure (because in NY more people get killed) but i respectfully disagree.
January 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that the average New Yorker is significantly more likely to face a violent end than is the average Israeli.
January 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what? More Israeli civilians are not killed because Israeli enemies are not trying to inflict collective punishment on Israeli civilians every day. Israeli enemies are trying to commit war crimes every single day and night.
January 27, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 2006 Human Rights Watch Annual Report noted:
The views of Israel as to whether or not it is the legally-recognized occupying power are irrelevant.
January 26, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel in the state of war with Hamas government of Gaza.
BTW, do you have any problem with target killing of war criminals?
January 26, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is in a fantasy of war, if it thinks this is war.
As far as your second question, it has semantic problems. One is not a war criminal until that has been adjudicated by a competent tribunal. I do not, however, have a problem with targeted killings of combatants or those in the line of command of combatants.
Indeed, Israel might be a good less bothered by Hamas rockets if it put in adequate counterartillery radar, and linked them to armed UAVs orbiting over Gaza. The Skyguard is probably an appropriate next line of defense, followed by some passive defenses. Amazing what chain-link fence will do to a simple rocket warhead.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 26, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
BorisR asks if I "have any problem with target killing of war criminals?"
Actually I do have problems with the targetted killing of anyone. Israel as (supposedly) a nation of laws should not be committing extra-judicial executions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly decrees extra-judicial executions to be a war crime:
Even worse than the actual commission of the extra-judicial executions themselves are the carnage wrought on ordinary Palestinians, unconnected to the conflict, who are frequently maimed and killed during these Israeli actions.
When Israel commits an extra-judicial execution the war criminal is the Israeli who performs the execution and not the Palestinian terrorist or indeed the many Palestinian civilians who are killed in these actions.
January 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, are you saying that the only allowed way to kill enemy in the war is by judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court?
January 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope, I really, really hope, that we are not revisited by...He Whose Name Must Not Be Said.
You are talking about two separate and distinct things. War criminal status has to be adjudicated, although that can be by what the Geneva Conventions call a "competent tribunal", which need not be a civilian court.
It is perfectly legal to kill an armed combatant, whether he is attacking a civilian target or trying to go after a main battle tank with a can opener. A headquarters location, a communications center, or a supply dump are valid targets, whether or not anyone is shooting from them.
Medical personnel are allowed to use individual weapons in self-protection or in defense of patients. While there have been exceptions, such as Ben Salomon, it is usually considered illicit for medical personnel to use crew-served weapons.
The US manual, The Law of Land Warfare, is a reasonably good reference, with more tactical situations that found in the Hague or Geneva Conventions. It is an extension of the original US Lieber Code, one of the first attempts to have a soldier's handbook, from the American Civil War. These, in turn, derive from the Just War Theory of past writers such as Grotius, Aquinas, and Augustine.
Still, some situations are judgment calls. I understand that the US tends to have a military lawyer next to the operator of some armed unmanned aerial vehicle.
What is the equivalent Israeli manual? You are in Israel, aren't you?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 26, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What is the equivalent Israeli manual?"
Good question for Herzl.
He'd be the most likely to know if there is a formal doctrine for the IDF. I do know that retrieving their dead warriors is a matter of great honor.
BTW, Israel has conceded that they used phosporous shells in Lebanon.
January 26, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know as much of the circumstances under which Israel used white phosphorus (WP) as I do about cluster munitions, but, I do not consider WP as inappropriate as cluster munitions. Its use, particularly against combatants, is not banned by any treaty by which the US or Israel are signatory. The agreement that would ban it is Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
For the record, I have seen and smelled phosphorus burns, at close range, and assisted in treating them -- it was a chemical laboratory accident, and the chemistry lab assistants were more experienced in handling the fragments, as they were removed by an ER physician. While there is much hysteria about WP weapons, I can think of quite a few other weapons that are as or more terrible. The most common use of WP on a battlefield is marking or obscuring targets, rather than destroying them.
There are better incendiaries if that is the purpose. Contrary to some claims that have been made, it is not a chemical weapon within the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the things Israel did in Lebanon, I can think of quite a few that were worse than using WP.
The IDF also reported that its internal investigation, which it did not make public, found nothing wrong with their use of cluster munitions.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 26, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The recent concession is unusual for Israel and there was a terrible description of bodies charred to the bone. I have no idea about details, really. Fallujah was mentioned in one article. Sorry about my vagueness.....skimmed the subject.
I thought the IDF investigation of it's own actions absolutely standard as far as those things go. Who knows? Perhaps they can get a UN security resolution to cover their asses. Nah....don't need it. Efforts are currently focused on a UNSC condemnation of Hamas rockets and mortars.
January 26, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without getting unduly clinical, in war and peace, bodies are charred to the bone by fires started by careless smoking in bed. I'd far rather be burned by phosphorus than magnesium or zirconium -- water stops phosphorus from burning, but not necessarily the others. Electrical burns can go as deeply as any other form.
If one spends any time around emergency medicine, there comes a time when something horrifies you, and may cause panic flight. For me, it was smelling gas gangrene. To my surprise, a couple of medical staff, usually rather cold, went to me and told me that I could get through this; it was the worst anything could get. The "worst", however, seems to differ from person to person, but the experience of knowing you've met a personal crisis allows you to get on and help people. For colleagues, they had a similar reaction to major burns. There are other horrors. You don't necessarily get hardened, and you may need to talk it through afterwards -- but there is a point at which one's total focus is dealing with what needs to be done. I honestly don't know if it's good or bad for the society that more people don't have to get through that sort of crisis.
Some terrible things happen in war, but certain weapons tend to have a mystique attached that doesn't reflect in wound pathology. In the First World War, some bayonets had sawteeth cut into the dull side, as do a number of current survival knives. The sawteeth are for cutting wood; they may actually make the knife worse as a weapon. Phosphorus seems to have gotten a similar mystique.
It may be that people don't encounter it in high school or college, unless they are science majors. Some of the Fallujah claims simply did not make any sense if one has actually worked with the element, not even as a weapon. I remember seeing some alleged casualties from it, and looked at them with a couple of physician friends. There were several explanations for what we saw, but phosphorus is not among them. At present, it has acquired an aura of horror.
And so the Hamas homemade rockets have acquired a certain aura. The GRAD and Katyusha are as inaccurate, but have a good deal larger warhead. I am honestly puzzled why the Israelis seem to claim so much trouble in dealing with them. In Iraq, IEDs are more of a threat; there are any number of ways to respond to light rockets and mortars.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 26, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israelis are going all out to field a counter to Qassams and Katyu
shas. ETA 18 Mos? Hamas has the capability to hit the oil refinery port town of Ashkelon.
Better to talk, que no?
I watched gas gangrene, as did half the population of the teaching hospital.
Burn unit the absolute worst place in the hospital. Living hell with little relief.
January 26, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has also the capability to hit Hamas.
Burn unit the absolute worst place in the hospital. Living hell with little relief. Jews know this too well. They would never let this happen to them again.
January 26, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally,
If there's credible evidence that the IDF are going all out to field a counter, they've managed to keep it out of the military-related press.
AFAIK, they have stopped development on a nearly off-the-shelf point target defense, which modifies the radars on the Swiss Oerlikon Skyguard automatic cannon. With Israeli censorship, it's impossible to tell what they are doing other than by inference. I do know they have stopped joint development, with the US, of what had been called the Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser (MTHEL, now renamed Nautilus), which has been demonstrated to be able to shoot down Katyushas and even artillery shells.
It's not a cheap technology, but I suppose that the alternative is the cost of the alternatives. Israel has continued development of the Arrow ABM, which very nicely complements the US PAC-3 ABM they already have. ABMs, however, guard more against a hypothetical distant missile threat rather than the current danger. Perhaps some reallocation of budget is in order.
If the worst elements of Gaza knew that Israel was using the off-the-shelf AN/TPQ-36, LCMR, AN/TPQ-37, and AN/MPQ-84 radars to cue counterbattery fire against the launch, what good would it do for the terrorists? If the IDF better disclosed what it is doing, there might be more sympathy toward it. At this point, I don't see any evidence of even simple defensive measures.
Take the example of a nursery or school. Now, I'm speaking somewhat hypothetically, as I would need to see topographic maps of the launching and target areas to know how effective this might be.
You may have seen US and British tanks, and especially lighter armored vehicles, covered with what looks like chain-link fencing. That, in fact, is what it is. The threat there is rockets using the Munroe effect, which must fire from a specific close distance to be effective. The chain link fences either cause antitank rockets to detonate prematurely, or sometimes be deflected.
Qassim and GRAD rockets have a contact detonator. If the roof of that school, and the side(s) of the building in the direction of the threat, had chain-link fencing covering it -- I'd guess about 10 feet from the roof or wall, but that would take analysis -- the rocket will make a loud noise but essentially blow up before hitting anything useful. The new US Stryker and whatever they call the LAV replacement have what look like venetian blinds on the side, as a more rugged version of the fencing.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 27, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Israeli-Palestinian crisis is not a war. Israel is, in FACT, the legally-recognized occupying power of the Palestinian Territories which means that Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people is tightly constrained by international humanitarian law. That Israel has failed to meet its humanitarian obligations is well-documented by international human-rights organizations. The Israeli settlement of its own citizens in the Palestinian Territories is immediately a war crime, as is the recent collective punishment of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. As organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International point out Israelis commit these warcrimes with utter impunity.
The tragedy of the Israeli state is how poorly it has been served by those who pretend to support it but who are as Daniel Levy observed anti-Israel.
January 26, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza. Moreover, when Israel decides to put the end of war crimes committed by the Gaza government and reoccupy Gaza, the same people who claim today that Israel occupies Gaza, will claim that the act or reoccupation would be illegal.
January 27, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you meant to write that Israel is no longer colonizing Gaza.
Regardless of the fact that Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza Strip the citizens it illegally settled there, Israel is still the Occupying Power in the Gaza Strip. Whatever the Israeli government may believe and claim is irrelevant to its continuing legal and moral obligations to the Palestinian people still living there.
January 27, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, you wouldn't have any problem if Israel decides to reoccupy Gaza using whatever force necessary to reestablish full control over Gaza?
January 27, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I was satisfied that Israel was taking reasonable defensive steps on its own territory -- and I am not so satisfied. If I was satisfied Israeli operation were more focused on the specific problem than it was in Lebanon, where much of the offensive seemed more aimed at collective punishment than Hizbollah -- no, I wouldn't have any problem with Israel using force.
I am not convinced that a ground occupation would be necessary. A good intermediate would be to put appropriate sensors on the Israeli side, or, if needed, on the Gaza side by a limited incursion and defending those sensors. With better launch sensors -- the US standard is to be able to fire at the launch site, with M109 155mm howitzers that Israel also has, within 15 seconds of launch, there is a better chance of getting the crew, unless they have the rocket on a timer (a real possibility).
Another intermediate is to put in the sensors, but not use the howitzers (I assume airbursting high explosive shells, not cluster submunitions). Instead, I'd put a continuous set of armed unmanned aerial vehicles over Gaza, with the rules of engagement being immediate guided missile fire (with a human being making the firing decision) on a suspected rocket or mortar site or storage location. UAVs can be surprisingly hard to see and very silent. There is a psychological deterrent that counterbattery artillery doesn't have: the crews don't know if something is overhead that is about to kill them, before they launch.
Yet another, and more dangerous for the IDF, approach would be to infiltrate sniper teams into the area.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 27, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to give you a five, but then I got caught on the internationalist optimism of your "highly constrained by international humanitarian law," which requires a little more comment on your generally good words.
Of course Israel and its superpower protector are not constrained at all by the other part of international law, which is that sovereign states can and will do as they please, especially as they believe certain actions and attitudes to be highly-valued "national interests."
While there is a body of international diplomacy that has grown up, largely with the United Nations, in the last 60 years, and the majority of (un-war-like) states have signed all the treaties that make this "highly constraining" body of international humanitarian law ... or rather, it constrains those who choose to be constrained (in peace) and it might constrain the contentious ... if there was anyone to enforce this international humanitarian law.
Now while the United States USED TO be a leader in this process, and I assume has signed most of the relevant treaties (and is deeply treatied-up in the Middle East, I did in the 80's study the Treaty of Washington that established the Israeli-Egyptian "peace" and I believe we officially gave all sorts of guarantees to the two states of the other's behavior). BUT ... now that we have gone over to the dark side, no one can make us fulfill our treaty obligations if our stinky bunch of neocons-in-action don't want to fulfill them.
And that's still "the law" of international law, when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of forcing states to do things they really don't want to do. Either there's a preponderant coalition threatening force (and do you think a badly-advised President McCain couldn't blunder up a Russian-Chinese-Arab and who else coalition that might do that?) or else there's a mature understanding that peace and cooperation is what builds a mutually beneficial future.
Too bad that kind of mature understanding is beyond the conventional wisdoms of the American and Israeli political establishments.
January 27, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that both the UN Security Council and the West could have done (much) more to ensure Israeli adherence to its committments under international humanitarian law. However, I do think the fate of the Palestinians would have been immeasurably worse had Israel not been so constrained. While no Israeli has yet been indicted for violating Israeli obligations under international humanitarian law the long-awaited fate of Augusto Pinochet demonstrates that such a fate is not beyond the bounds of reason or hope.
January 27, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
target killing
I believe the correct term is
"extrajudicial execution"
aka
Lynching
aka
Murder
January 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The classic type of targeted killing, in warfare, is a long-range rifle shot by a qualified sniper team. Other scenarios include such things as the US shooting down Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in WWII, by having fighters ready at a spot they knew, from cryptanalysis, that he would pass on an inspection trip.
Yamamoto was a fine man, a patriot that argued strongly against starting WWII. Had he survived the war and been tried fairly, I believe he would have been acquitted of planning aggressive war. I have no hesitation saying that I bowed to some of his relics in Tokyo, and I wish he had lived longer; he had much to share in war and peace.
Nevertheless, as a top combat commander, he was a legitimate target, considered so valuable to the Japanese that the US was willing to risk that they would conclude the interception was based on cryptanalysis, and change their codes. The cover story held. I regret the necessity, but I believe that shooting down his aircraft was consistent with the laws of war.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 26, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One would be hard pressed to equate the asassination of Sheikh Yassin with the aircraft engagement that killed Yamamoto.
I was assuming that brother Boris was referencing the "yassin" brand of targeted killing, not the WWII version.
Perhaps I did him an injustice...
January 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the main body of customary international law really doesn't address non-national combatants. There is a possibility to find some alternatives.
Easily going back to an annex to the Treaty of Paris of 1856 is the concept of treating piracy as jus cogens, or customary standards that any state must enforce. (the main treaty ended the Crimean War; I don't know how the banning of privateering got involved)
In the law of the sea, pirates are considered hostis humani generis, or enemies of mankind. This definition has generally been accepted as applying, as well, to slavers.
Recently, there have been various national court decisions that allowed torturers to fall under hostis humani generis. In the US, for example, this principle was upheld against torturers in the US, who were not US citizens, had not tortured American citizens, and had not done the torture in the US.
I would like to see some investigation into the applicability of these principles to non-national terrorists. Historically, warship captains could convene a tribunal and execute pirates; admittedly, quite a few swung them at the yardarm without much of a hearing. I hope this isn't unduly worrisome, given your screen name.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting comment on pirates, Howard--it reminds me of this story from St. Augustine:
January 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
privateering
One Queen's(Elizabeth) privateer (Drake) is, as the expression goes, another King's(Philip) pirate.
While I am proud to say that I have rehabilitated myself, and no longer treat the *misfortunes of my fellow men as my inventory, when I did fly the "guild flag ", my letters of Marque and Reprisal were duly executed by the State Bar.
*No one engages plaintiffs' counsel because things are going so good...
January 27, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect you didn't practice in Maryland. Two attorneys, good friends and members of the Society for Creative Anachronism, had actually worked out a settlement for their clients. They had found, however, a remnant of colonial law, never repealed, that allowed champions for settlement of issues using trial by combat.
Since both were skilled swordsmen, with the "steel-rated" safety certification that let swordsmen duel as authentically as TV wrestlers wrestle -- a quite athletic acting discipline in both cases -- they came into court, and proposed to the judge to settle the case with swords on the lawn of the courthouse. While they actually had the relevant statute, the judge told them not to dream of it, and a repeal was sent through the Legislature in record time.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 27, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
you didn't practice in Maryland
You are correct.
However, I did fence second foil in college, so perhaps I overlooked a congenial jurisdiction.
(I suspect, given your eclectic interests, that you are not unfamiliar with the work of Harlan Ellison, specifically his anthology(ies) Dangerous Visions. One short story explored a litigation format involving a sort of computer assisted mind-meld of attorneys, who, energized by some sort of *ergot based preparation, engaged in a "Rashomon" like mind duel the prevailing narrative of which became the findings of fact...)
*Now that's what I call a "friendly forum"
January 27, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...when I was around 7 or 8, my best friend was, believe it or not, a girl who was a couple of years older. How she got interested in fencing in Newark, NJ, I have no idea, but she started early.
When she went to college, NCAA fencing was still men-only. Early in the year, however, something happened to the fencing coach, and, while she was not allowed to compete, she took over coaching, since she dominated every male fencer. *sigh* I wonder what ever happened to her; we lost touch when I went to college.
When it comes to Harlan Ellison, I think of two things: first, the ultimate political correctness in "Harrison Bergeron", a chilling story now in full text online. Second, among science fiction fans, there are two preparations variously attributed to Ellison or Asimov. One is the Superior Chip Dip, made by whipping dry Chinese mustard into a smooth paste by adding Tabasco. The other is bourbon over dry ice, which comes steaming and bubbling, only served responsibly when it warms up enough not to freeze skin. The dry ice, however, freezes most of the water out of the drink.
I'd be a bit scared of the latter, but with the former, I used to have a couple of notes in a sadly lost wallet. One was in Thai and another in Hindi, and was a note to waiters saying "this is a crazy American. When he says he wants the food hot by our standards. Give it to him that way, and he will neither choke nor sue." One has reached some sort of goal when one takes a friend to a Thai restaurant where they know you, and they ask "and how hot should we serve it to the American?"
Your legal story reminds me of another one, not by Ellison, but a rather thought-provoking one called, IIRC, "E-Dep". I don't remember the author. It dealt with a society with very advanced medicine, such that they could keep the most damaged people alive, including ones with little or no sensory capability. The "E-Dep" was a physician specialist who was given a wide berth by the staff. It was his job to mind-meld with the most critically disabled patients, unable to communicate in another way, and determine if they wanted to continue living or desired euthanasia.
After one complex case, where he certified the patient wanted to die, and then unlocked the life support master switch and turned it off, he was observed to do what he often did after a "treatment": go to the labor and delivery suite, and then spend time silently looking at the nursery. One colleague said he didn't understand; another, a parent, said it should have been obvious.
I can't say that the legal mind-duel will ever happen, and Harrison Bergeron is as evil a hell as I can imagine. Some version of E-Dep, however, is bound to happen.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 27, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be a bit scared of the latter
I'd be a bit scared of the former..., and I've eaten the *"hot" Q at Everett and Jones in Berkeley.
*It comes "mild", "medium" and "hot"
The "mild" is a lie.
January 27, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
stutter clicked...
January 27, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Churchill's end of the beginning speech was actually a response to the recent victory at the Second Battle of El Alamein.
January 26, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are quite correct; I was using a bit of poetic license that does recognize his words were quite appropriate for Midway. There still was hard fighting ahead after El Alamein or Midway.
A reasonable case can be made that "Henceforth the Imperial Subjects will meet equally well armed, and perhaps better armed troops. Hence forth they will have to face in many theatres of war that superiority in the air which they have so often used without mercy against other, of which they boasted all round the world, and which they intended to use as an instrument for convincing all other peoples that all resistance to them was hopeless....
In particular, the Pacific beginning of the end was probably the Battle of the Phillipine Sea, also known as the Marianas Turkey Shoot, which irreversibly crushed Japanese naval superiority. The end, from the perspective of the Japanese peace faction, was the Battle of Saipan, with the result of the fall of the Tojo government.
Unfortunately, the Allies suffered from the dual handicaps of having essentially no human intelligence from Japan, as well as operating under the negotiating handicap imposed by FDR's throwaway comment of "unconditional surrender." The surrender did, in fact, have one condition, the preservation of the monarchy. Not having that condition on the table kept the hard-liners in control, even though any objective analysis by the Japanese showed that Saipan meant their inner defensive perimeter had been breached, to say nothing of the effects of US submarine warfare on shipments to Japan.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 26, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 26, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure a full-scale invasion of Gaza will be just as effective as the IDF's last glorious victory in Lebanon.
January 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
or as as the IDF's last glorious victory over terrorists in the Second Intifada war.
January 26, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, here we are, talking about what the IDF needs to do about terrorists.
January 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Here we are, talking about what the IDF needs to do about terrorists" in Gaza. IDF won a glorious victory over terrorists only in the West Bank. BTW, I’m not sure that a full-scale invasion of Gaza is the best option. I just don’t see any other reasonable option. It doesn’t mean there are no better options. Let's hope that there are better options.
January 26, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
One possibility would be accepting Hamas's offer of negotiations for a cease-fire.
January 26, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas government of Gaza can just cease war crime fire any time and Israel will resume all non military traffic to Gaza. There is no need of negotiations.
January 26, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink