SSI of AWC in Carlisle, here via WPR
"...There are certainly security benefits to be gained for Israel from a devastating military operation in Gaza, despite the heavy costs that accompany one. The fact that Hezbollah has not dared to open a northern front in support of Hamas shows that, despite the widely acknowledged failure of the 2006 Lebanon War, it did have some deterrent impact.
But a strategic objective that includes dealing some sort of definitive deathblow to Hamas ignores both the degree to which Hamas has become integrated into the social fabric of Gaza through its social services operations, and the degree to which Palestinian resistance has become integrated into the political fabric of Hamas for lack of any other viable alternative.
The Israeli army might eradicate what we know as Hamas (the men, the weapons, the command and control infrastructure), but that will only drive those Palestinians who respond to their very real humanitarian plight with the urge to resist to find new expressions for their militancy. Those new expressions are almost certain to be more desperate than Hamas, just as Hamas was more desperate than the vestiges of Fatah it replaced...."
3 comments:
To a large extent the analysis posted is flawed. The fact that Hezbollah did not 'open a northern front in support of Hamas' is not due to the 'deterrence' effect of the July war of 2006 despite its failure. Hezbollah's mission is to protect the homeland first. Hezbollah acknowledges that there is no consensus among Lebanese to wage a war of liberation of Palestine as long as Arab regimes are following the so-called 'strategy of peace'. Also as long as Syria's front is quiet, the Lebanese front will be quiet. Hezbollah's capture of soldiers in the summer of 2006 was to force Israel to negotiate the release of Lebanese prisoners. It achieved that goal. It had no other goal. Among the consequences of Israel's foolish adventure was the disapperance of the deterrence factor of Israel's Defence Forces.
If the Army War College is teaching such flawed analyses then one should not be surprised that more mistakes and costly ones will continue to be made
"The fact that Hezbollah has not dared to open a northern front in support of Hamas shows that, despite the widely acknowledged failure of the 2006 Lebanon War, it did have some deterrent impact."
Ha. Nothing of course to do with elections coming up in Lebanon and Hizballah not wanting to give Mfarteen any kind of election platform.
But of course they cannot say that because Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.
Expanding on the point that eradication of Hamas will only generate Palestinian desperation that exceeds that of Hamas, it might be worth reviewing the lessons of the past four years. First, Hamas was taught that if it participates in the democratic electoral process, its Western enemies will subvert the results. Second, it was taught that if it eschews violence and, say, uses bulldozers to get attention, all the people of Gaza will be subjected to economic warfare. Third, Hamas was taught that if it accepts a ceasefire with Israel, as this past summer, Israel will cheat (e.g., by not ending its economic warfare).
Would someone please explain to me why it is beneficial to the West to teach Hamas these lessons?
Post a Comment