Defending the IDF’s fairly recent actions in Gaza ….is it possible?
			Archive

Posted by: Dermot ® 07/09/2009, 13:22:08 Author Profile Alert Forum Admin

Of course it is. A British Colonel gave a speech in Jerusalem last month doing just that. He speaks of British / American experiences when facing a non-conventional enemy and then focuses on the IDF. However, what he says is relevant to all Western forces facing fighting forces whose backers are States such as Iran or Al Q/Taliban etc. That is, State backed & non-State forces operating, without objection, under a modus operandi of deliberately sacrificing innocents ( and then to perversely exult in it, I’m sure) for the sake of their strategic and ideological aims. Here’s an extract from the speech but it’s worth reading in full so I’ve linked to it below. ………………………………................................................................ I have spoken of the considerable British and American efforts to operate within the laws of war and to reduce unnecessary civilian casualties. But what of the Israeli Defence Forces? The IDF face all the challenges that I have spoken about, and more. Not only was Hamas's military capability deliberately positioned behind the human shield of the civilian population and not only did Hamas employ the range of insurgent tactics I talked through earlier. They also ordered, forced when necessary, men, women and children , from their own population to stay put in places they knew were about to be attacked by the IDF. Fighting an enemy that is deliberately trying to sacrifice their own people. Deliberately trying to lure you in to killing their own innocent civilians. And Hamas, like Hizballah, are also highly expert at driving the media agenda. They will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents. Their people often have no option than to go along with the charades in front of the world's media that Hamas so frequently demand, often on pain of death. What is the other challenge faced by the IDF that we British do not have to face to the same extent? It is the automatic, pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights. So what did the IDF do in Gaza to meet their obligation to operate within the laws of war? When possible the IDF gave at least four hours' notice to civilians to leave areas targeted for attack. Attack helicopter pilots, tasked with destroying Hamas mobile weapons platforms, had total discretion to abort a strike if there was too great a risk of civilian casualties in the area. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were cancelled because of this. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. This sort of task is regarded by military tacticians as risky and dangerous at the best of times. To mount such operations, to deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands, is to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks. In the latter stages of Cast Lead the IDF unilaterally announced a daily three-hour cease fire. The IDF dropped over 900,000 leaflets warning the population of impending attacks to allow them to leave designated areas. A complete air squadron was dedicated to this task alone. Leaflets also urged the people to phone in information to pinpoint Hamas fighters vital intelligence that could save innocent lives. The IDF phoned over 30,000 Palestinian households in Gaza, urging them in Arabic to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to fight. Similar messages were passed in Arabic on Israeli radio broadcasts warning the civilian population of forthcoming operations. Despite Israel's extraordinary measures, of course innocent civilians were killed and wounded. That was due to the frictions of war that I have spoken about, and even more was an inevitable consequence of Hamas' way of fighting. By taking these actions and many other significant measures during Operation Cast Lead the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare. But the IDF still did not win the war of opinions - especially in Europe. The lessons from this campaign apply to the British and American armies and to other Western forces as well as to the IDF. We are in the era of information warfare. The kind of tactics used by Hamas and Hizballah and by the Taliban and Jaish al Mahdi work well for them. As they see it, they have no other choice. And they will continue to use it. ………………………………............................................................... Related link: HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Previous

Current page

Next

Replies to this message

Re: Defending the IDF’s fairly recent actions in Gaza ….is it possible? Re: Defending the IDF’s fairly recent actions in Gaza ….is it possible? -- Dermot Top of thread Archive Posted by: PatD ® 07/09/2009, 19:45:19 Author Profile Alert Forum Admin The real fundamental problem to my mind, is why do human beings need to find someone else to blame for their own shortcomings. That's a religious argument at bottom, & one which I don't think I've got the mental stamina to engage in just at the moment, if ever. The Jews have often been the scapegoat in our culture, & the fact that it has recently, in historical terms, become largely irreligious, doesn't seem to have removed the basic instinct. Here's Paul Berman's take on Gaza. Related link: http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/gaza-and-after%253A-an-interview-with-paul-berman.html Previous Current page Next Very interesting interview, Pat ... Re: Re: Defending the IDF’s fairly recent actions in Gaza ….is it possible? -- PatD Top of thread Archive Posted by: Dermot ® 07/09/2009, 21:57:57 Author Profile Alert Forum Admin It’s right that it should begin first with a look at the Hamas Charter as that has to be the starting point, surely.  He’s also right to emphasise the two views of Hamas and its charter, too. The genocidal one ( so clearly and blatantly expressed by Hamas regardless of its occasional “ Islamic truces” ) and the one he describes as follows: I think that, around the world, a lot of people look at Hamas in that light. They see in Hamas the ugliness that clings to the powerless, and, out of compassion, they excuse the ugliness. Or they choose to overlook it, in the way that, out of courtesy, you might choose not even to notice a dreadful deformity on someone's face or body. Of course, though, he goes on to say: But which of these is the correct analysis - that Hamas poses a genocidal threat in the making? Or that Hamas expresses mostly the ugliness of the powerless, and poses a relatively small danger? Everything hangs on the answer to that question. People tend to assume that the proportionality of a military action should be measured against what has already taken place - that somebody who has been attacked has the right to counter-attack on roughly the same level. "The law of even-Steven," in Walzer's dismissive phrase. But it is the future that has to be taken into account. And a little bit later adds: But if you were in the Israeli government, it wouldn't be so easy to gamble on the answer. So Israel is in a bind. No matter what the Israelis choose to do, they have to recognize that they might be tragically wrong - either in their failure to defend themselves, or in the suffering they inflict on other people. Now this , to me, is what is lacking almost 100% from the knee-jerk “ Nazi Zionist” shit swallowed hook, line and sinker from whole swathes of people ….over here we could, for short hand, call them “ Guardianista’s” but it goes way beyond that. And it’s right too that he then goes on to bring Iran and its nuclear ambitions into the frame. And how he puts across the general  ---or more usual ---way people have of looking at the predicament of Israel is interesting too, such as: Then again, I think that a certain number of people see nothing especially crazy or hateful in Hamas' arguments and goals. They see points that are fairly reasonable, even if Hamas' way of expressing those points seems a little crude. The Jews should not be killed, all reasonable people agree; but (so goes a very popular argument) neither do the Jews have a right to defend themselves. Also, the quick survey of the Jewish people throughout history was excellent. Doesn’t matter which way Jews play it or where they find themselves, they are always “ in the wrong”. Though he does point out that opposition to anti-Semitism used to be one of the pillars of the Left but brilliantly describes how that has all changed to what much of the Left represents today. At least outside of America. He points out that it's more marginal in the Sates but it's certainly not over here.  In essence, though he doesn’t say but I do, the Left exhibits a greater eagerness to stand in solidarity with extreme right wing Islamism, when push comes to shove. No doubt about that in my mind no matter how many would try to weasel out of it.  Or actually he probably does say it but far more subtlety and cleverly. First by focusing on the “ Nazi” thing and then finishing up with: Other countries commit relative crimes, which can be measured and compared. But Israel commits an absolute crime. In the end, it is the grand accusation against the Jews, in ever newer versions: the Jews as cosmic enemy of the universal good. I note his enthusiasm for Obama and actually take his point. Very much so in terms of the American historical context, at least. Still, putting that aside ---big as it is --- I’ve yet to be convinced that Obama is anything but naïve and slow on the uptake in terms of dealing with what’s going on ---and what, most likely, will continue to go on-- out there in the big, bad world. The recent eruptions in Iran are powerful example. His initial slow and eventual neutral response was pathetic. Sure, it was put across by his camp as a form of wise, careful pondering followed with a balanced, non-hysterical response. Another argument from his camp being “ Well, if you’re not able or not prepared to actually go in there and do something then strong, harsh rhetoric is pointless and useless”. Well, that just isn’t true, IMO. More likely,  he eventually strengthened his rhetoric but at the wrong time. Some reports cite H Clinton as the one who was prodding him to change his stance. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who it was but at least someone was there to do so. That’s what I mean by naïve and slow on the uptake. Having said that, none of this is written in stone, obviously. There’s an interesting article on Frontpage mag covering his handling of the Iran crisis. Obviously, it can’t be said for certain whether or not a more clear and principled response from Obama would have made a huge difference but, on the whole, I go along with the argument that it would have. The article, though, is emphatic that Obama did enormous damage. I wouldn’t be as certain as that but I still think there’s a good chance of it being true it‘s just that, given the complexity of the Iranian stuff, it‘s maybe not quite as clear cut as the article makes out. Or maybe it is, ho hum.. I’ll link to the article at the bottom of the page. I mention that because Berman enthuses about Obama in the American context, and I see his point, but I think he’s a little vague about Obama in the foreign affairs arena.  In fact he doesn’t say much other than it’s good to wish the best for both Israeli’s and Palestinians and Obama might help things along the way. Yeah, we’d all like the Palestinians to be free of Hamas ( and thus Iranian and other) influence and we’d all like them to be free of hard-line Islamism in general and exist peacefully and prosperously as best they can. However, it’s something else altogether for Palestinians to be free of, as he puts it, “ pathological ideologies” simply via the charisma of an Obama. Maybe I’m underestimating the charisma but I don’t think so. I'd have been interested in listening to Berman go more in-depth re Obama because, obviously, for the next few years it's Obama who'll be playing a central role in the almost intractable problem of Israel-Palestine and, of course therefore, Iran etc. 　 　 　 Related link: Freedom betrayed Modified by Dermot at Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 22:46:30 Previous Current page Next The main reason I'm not 100% behind the Frontpage article Re: Very interesting interview, Pat ... -- Dermot Top of thread Archive Posted by: Dermot ® 07/09/2009, 22:36:07 Author Profile Alert Forum Admin is this: In the last thirty years we have seen many revolutions around the world in which people took to the streets in large numbers and were faced there by a much smaller number who were heavily armed.  What we have learned from these situations it is that one factor matters more than any other:  confidence.  For the police and security forces, there is no safe course of action.  It’s dangerous to follow orders and shoot unarmed people, and it’s dangerous not to follow orders and not shoot.  The one might get them tried for murder if the revolution succeeds, and the other might get them executed for mutiny.  And so they try desperately to see which way the wind is blowing.  If the police become confident that the revolution is failing, they’ll obey orders.  If on the other hand they believe that it is succeeding, they’ll join the crowds.  Every single one of them is trying to discern the tipping point, the moment when it becomes clear which way things are going, and until then they try to avoid committing themselves.  An added factor in this game of confidence is that the people with the guns probably have relatives and close friends among the protesters.  Even if they don’t get into trouble with the authorities (whether the old or the new) they also have to worry both about the safety of those dear to them, and how their own actions will be judged at home. It's a bit sketchy. It needs to cite some actual examples. Sadly, I tend to think the brute force of a repressive regime usually has the upper hand. At least in the immediate time-frame of an event. I'm sure there must be examples to cite ( ?) but I'm a bit too tired to have them drop from the top of my head, right now. That's not to say Obama gets a free pass, though. He should have been forthright and clear in condemning those controlling the power and physical force in Iran, from the outset. I had the impression he had " photo-ops" re future dealings with the bastards in power in his mind rather than the people of Iran. Call me cynical but that was definitely the impression I got. The article's on safer ground when covering the " other side of confidence" ie : On the other side, confidence is even more important.  It is dangerous to confront armed men on the streets, and aside from a foolhardy few, most will only do so if they feel confident that things can go their way.  The more people come out, the safer they all feel, and then even more will come out.  But confidence either grows or it declines—it can’t stand still.  As soon as the size of the crowd is noticeably less, confidence will quickly drain away.  Like the security forces, the protesters too are looking for that tipping point—the point at which they are so strong that the security forces will begin to lose confidence in their superiors and stop obeying orders.  The mood of one side soon affects that of the other.  As one side gain confidence, their opponents lose it.  But what is most important is that once the protesters start to doubt the outcome, it is no longer in doubt: they have lost.   In a situation like this, Barak Obama was not powerless to affect the outcome, as his defenders suggest.  As spokesman for the most powerful nation on earth, he was in a position to make a real difference to the all-important psychology on both sides—and that is exactly what he did.  But instead of building up the confidence of the protesters (and simultaneously undermining that of the security apparatus) with encouragement and a ringing endorsement of what they were doing, what he actually did was to give comfort to the forces of repression and undermine the confidence of the Iranian people  Modified by Dermot at Thu, Jul 09, 2009, 22:37:46 Previous Current page Next Romania is one example. Maybe more to come, ho hum (nt) Re: The main reason I'm not 100% behind the Frontpage article -- Dermot Top of thread Archive Posted by: Dermot ® 07/09/2009, 22:52:19 Author Profile Alert Forum Admin Previous Current page Next