Dead end in Gaza?

While Israeli officials have stressed that the Gaza operation would be different than the 2006 campaign against Hizbollah in Lebanon, an analysis by Haaretz' top military correspondent raises doubts (in my mind) about whether the country's political and military leaders are pursuing a clear strategy:
After one and a half weeks of fighting the operation is experiencing tension between the immediate goals and ultimate objectives. The immediate goals are destroying rocket launchers, killing fighters and arresting wanted men for interrogation and to swap for Gilad Shalit. The ultimate objectives are a lasting and stable cease-fire, and a long-term end to arms smuggling into Gaza.

This tension includes the inherent differences among the three highest-ranking entities behind the operation: the political echelon, and within it the conflicts among the Olmert-Barak-Livni trio; Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi; and Southern Command head Yoav Galant. No subordinate rank is capable of providing the rank above it with spectacular results at a minimal effort ?(and above the cabinet is Israeli society as a whole?). We can pay little and get little, or pay a lot and get little, and perhaps − no guarantees − we can pay a lot and get a lot.

As things stand now, Israel will find it hard to translate its military power into policy gains. As long as Hamas can fire into Be'er Sheva and north of the Israel Air Force base at Hatzor, the organization will not submit to Israel's cease-fire terms, despite the hits it has taken.

The analysis does raise the interesting option of deploying Arab troops in peacekeeping operations on Gaza borders.

In any case, also check-out my recent post on @TAC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pundits who screw-up: No big deal...

Image
Matt Barganier desconstructs Andrew Sullivan's mea sorta culpa on Iraq in Time magazine (Sullivan seen above in a thoughtful pose on Bill Maher's "Real Time"). There have been many of those in recent weeks (including by WFB and Fukuyama ). In an commentary published last year, Oops! I helped start a War which was about one of the earlier apologizing-war-aplogists, I pointed out to the contrast between the way the losers who operate in the market (including financial analysts) are punished and the reality in which the losers in the political game (including foreign policy analysts) rarely get punished: Imagine: for a few years you were investing the money you had saved for your daughter's college education in one of those moderately conservative plans that provided some increase in the value of the investment without exposing it to major risks. But then your financial planner – let's call him Ken P. – got in touch with you and came up with a really great ide...
Read more

When will Israel attack Iran?

Image
I'm not an "Intelligence analyst" and I don't play one on television. But I urge you to study the following items: 1. Seymour Hersh new piece in The New Yorker, "The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?" 2. Tony Karon's "Israel's Domestic Political Games Raises the Danger of a U.S.-Iran War." 3. Aluf Benn's "Olmert's Drums of War" in Haaretz . 4. Bush:I would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran. 5. Michael Oren's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on November 16 which is only accessible to subscribers. So here are a few interesting quotes: Much like 1967, Israel faces a Middle Eastern leader who has repeatedly sworn to wipe it off the map, and to that end is assiduously trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Like Nasser, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can cripple Israel economically by keeping it in a state of alert, driving away foreign investment and tourism. In the absence of interna...
Read more