Watching the IDF (catch all)

[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.

[Rank amateur]

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.

OK. As a sign of respect to an old soldier, I will. But I am a coward, so give me some time to work up my courage and choose my words carefully.