Watching the IDF (catch all)

[Tom Odom]

How is that not the essence of creating defeat? What other mechanism exists? It worked against for the UK in every war we ever fought, and won.

Quite simply that the UK and or the US has had the option of disengagement as a course of action. In the case of Israel that option is not there. For years there was the territory for peace option and in some cases--Egypt for one--it worked albeit with a very large US checkbook for both sides.

The difficulty for Israel is that while it can win decisively in a large scale conflict, its options are strictly short term. The longer term solution as in the case of the 82 invasion proved unsustainable as indeed did the longer term occupation of southern Lebanon and the emergence of Hizballah.

So there is Israel's conundrum: decisive defeat ala 67 is very short-lived thing. Longer term solutions are cast in doubt by demographics. I liked the Israeli general's description of hizballah because he keyed on something most outsiders miss. Hizballah is a nationalist organization with a religious charter. That means that it often operates purely in what it sees as Lebanese interests. Where it really constitutes a threat to Israel is in its ability to absorb punishment and remain intact.

As for the West Bank, the IDF does use limited responses but again what is the objective? They have been in the past to sustain Israeli settlements in the territories and limit Palestinian threats toward the settlements and Israel proper. COIN ultimately has an objective of creating or sustaining some sort of government. The IDF has used a one-sided approach to intimidate and undercut Palestinian leadership for decades. To a certain degree that has worked in that the IDF still has the West Bank. On the other hand it faces a much more robust and threatening enemy.

Tom

[William F. Owen]

As for the West Bank, the IDF does use limited responses but again what is the objective? They have been in the past to sustain Israeli settlements in the territories and limit Palestinian threats toward the settlements and Israel proper. COIN ultimately has an objective of creating or sustaining some sort of government. The IDF has used a one-sided approach to intimidate and undercut Palestinian leadership for decades. To a certain degree that has worked in that the IDF still has the West Bank. On the other hand it faces a much more robust and threatening enemy.

Territory for peace? Everywhere the IDF withdraws from becomes a base for attacking Israel.

The objective is essentially peace. Easy to say, almost impossible to do, and the goal posts in the occupied territories are pretty fast moving. It's to create an acceptable level of violence, so as other measures can work.

You would be perfectly safe driving around most of the West Bank today, indeed access to most of the West Bank is in no way restricted. Just don't climb over the Road Fence, and slow right down at checkpoint and open your windows.

...undercut the Palestinian Leadership? What Leadership? I agree there is a certain amount of pretty unproductive "divide and rule" but when the leadership is mostly corrupt and ineffective and cannot deliver on an agreement, then what else is there?

[Rex Brynen]

most of the West Bank is in no way restricted. Just don't climb over the Road Fence, and slow right down at checkpoint and open your windows.

This is hardly the case: every major Palestinian population center in the West Bank is ringed by checkpoints. Vehicular traffic is so restricted that the norm is to exit the taxi on one side, line up at the barrier, and grab another taxi on the other side (I've done it more times than I care to count). Good are rigorously searched. Access to Jerusalem is barred to most of the West Bank population.

There are Israeli-only roads in the West Bank, largely reserved to Jewish settlers. The local population can't use them. Indeed, in some areas (the Jordan Valley) there are movement and permit systems in place for local residents on all roads.

You'll find extensive information on the scope, nature, and impact of Israeli mobility restrictions in the West Bank at the UN OCHA website. World Bank analysis on the economic and social impact of these restrictions can be found here.

[William F. Owen]

This is hardly the case: every major Palestinian population center in the West Bank is ringed by checkpoints. [/URL].

Sure it is. I also drive around the West Bank, and specifically the Jordan Valley on a regular basis. Sure, Israeli number plates make a huge difference, and there are some areas off limits, but it is not Afghanistan or Iraq (or even Gaza!). If you know what you're doing, and you're there for the right reasons, then you are pretty safe. I feel a heck of a lot safer on the West Bank than I ever did in Algeria or Sierra Leone, during their security problems. There are parts of Thailand and the Philippines I'd stay the hell away from as well.

Yes, I've seen whole families of Arabs, standing in the winter rain, while their car is ripped apart and I read the Marsom Watch reports and I know members of that organisation, so I am in no way suggesting that there are not substantial problems. A lot of what is done is coercive, unjust and even cruel and unnecessary, but a certain amount contributes to security. How much? Give me a crystal ball, and I'll tell you.

[Rank amateur]

COIN ultimately has an objective of creating or sustaining some sort of government.

At least some people want the Israeli government in control.

"It would be far more accurate to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "disputed territories" to which both Israelis and Palestinians have claims."


Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fundamental sources of international legality decide the question in Israel's favor. The last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory, including the sector east of the Jordan River

In some ways they are.

In 1967, Israel nationalized all West Bank water.

[Tom Odom]

At least some people want the Israeli government in control.

"It would be far more accurate to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "disputed territories" to which both Israelis and Palestinians have claims."


Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fundamental sources of international legality decide the question in Israel's favor. The last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory, including the sector east of the Jordan River

In some ways they are.

In 1967, Israel nationalized all West Bank water.

Yep

The Israelis considering the source of your post

The US government position is that the West Bank is occupied territory. That is why US policy was and still is againstthe settlement program.

In any case, the thread was IDF COIN.

Tom

[William F. Owen]

@ The US government position is that the West Bank is occupied territory.

@ That is why US policy was and still is againstthe settlement program.

I would also call Judea and Samaria, the occupied territories, and not Judea and Samaria. - and so would more Israelis than most US and UK media would ever want to admit.

Which settlement program? The illegal settlements are illegal. No debate, but there are Moshav, and Kibbutz which are perfectly legal. There are also Jewish Communities in the territories that have lived there 100's and even 1,000 of years

[Tom Odom]

Wilf,

The settlements I refer to are the settlements initiated by Sharon and other hardliners.

Let's agree to disagree and move on.

Tom

[Rank amateur]

That is why US policy was and still is againstthe settlement program.

In any case, the thread was IDF COIN.

If we were really opposed to them, we wouldn't pay for them.

And an auditing bait-and-switch in which U.S. aid was used to free up billions of dollars for spending on the settlements formally opposed by the United States.


Anyway, IDF COIN is achieving somebodies objective, therefore it is - in my opinion - successful. Though, of course, it's fair to say that the objective is highly controversial. I'd also say it is a lot closer to Dr. Metz's Roman COIN than British COIN, but I tend to agree with the good doctor's thesis that Roman COIN is more successful, especially short term.

[Ken White]

If we were really opposed to them, we wouldn't pay for them.

We wouldn't be giving them and the Egyptians a couple of Bil + a year -- but we are and have been probably since about the time you were born...

Good luck finding a US politician who will express any real and meaningful opposition to that aid and the known chicanery that goes along with it. Either party...

[William F. Owen]

Anyway, IDF COIN is achieving somebodies objective, therefore it is - in my opinion - successful. Though, of course, it's fair to say that the objective is highly controversial. I'd also say it is a lot closer to Dr. Metz's Roman COIN than British COIN, but I tend to agree with the good doctor's thesis that Roman COIN is more successful, especially short term.

There is some common misconceptions at play here. British COIN, prior to Ulster, was characterised by a brutality and severity that most would find hard to stomach. Almost every measure used by the IDF for COIN was a measure previously used by the British during the mandate, including home demolition. Trying to draw parallels between the West Bank and Ulster is idiotic - as proved by Basra.

Yes, IDF COIN is pretty harsh, and even unnecessarily so, but not compared with 99% of other nations on earth (Columbia, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Indonesia, Syria, Iran, Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, etc etc.) and some of the COIN practices in Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing to be too proud of.

[Rank amateur]

There is some common misconceptions at play here. British COIN, prior to Ulster,

British COIN/Roman COIN aren't my terms but I believe that they are metaphorical for Humane/brutal. I probably should have put them in quotation marks. i.e. The British used "Roman" techniques before adopting "British" techniques.

and some of the COIN practices in Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing to be too proud of.

I've been thinking about starting a thread on that but fear of "the graveyard of the banned" has prevented me from doing so.

Good luck finding a US politician who will express any real and meaningful opposition to that aid and the known chicanery that goes along with it. Either party...

That's my point. If the powers that be are happy, it's meeting objectives. Of course, you can create a lot of destruction and mess up a lot of things while achieving objectives, but then the problem isn't the strategy or the tactics, it's the objectives. I'm not going to debate the objectives.

[Ken White]

...
... but then the problem isn't the strategy or the tactics, it's the objectives. I'm not going to debate the objectives.

Debate the objectives, I mean. I'd also suggest the no strategy or tactics are involved in that bit -- it's pure politics.

I've been thinking about starting a thread on that but fear of "the graveyard of the banned" has prevented me from doing so.

I don't think that should deter you. Unless you get deliberately provocative, that shouldn't be a problem. Only thing I'd suggest is be real sure of your facts and avoid quoting inflammatory and suspect sources -- or blogs. I think you should post a thread if you wish.