Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria

[plasticsundance]

THREATENED by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources.

The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger to Israel’s existence, defence insiders say.

“The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defence agenda, higher than the Palestinian one,” said an Israeli defence source. Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”, a new position in the Israeli Defence Forces. His job will be to command any future strikes on Iran and Syria.

The Israeli defence establishment believes that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme means war is likely to become unavoidable.


more ...

[happyslug]

1. The Israelis are in a box.

The box is one of their own creation but it is still a box. The Israelis do NOT want to retreat from the West Bank or Gaza (i.e. Leave the Palestinians control their own borders with Jordan and Egypt) but do not want to re-take them either (Annexation would mean giving the Palestinians equal rights, including the vote, to the Jews and Arabs of Israeli proper).

Any person or group of people in a box are dangerous. For example in Kent State the National Guard Troops found themselves outflanked by their own maneuver to move the students. The Guardsmen could NOT stay where they were, nor attack (For that would make the situation worse) but the Guardsmen did not want to retreat (Least the Students take that as a sign of Weakness). Thus caught in box of their own creation, the guardsmen ended up frustrated and scared and finally the troops opened fire on the defenseless students (and then retreated anyway for once they did the stupid act of opening fire the leadership accepted the situation and ordered a Retreat). Hitler at Stalingrad did the same thing, the Germans could NOT hold Stalingrad, nor take it, but Hitler did not want to retreat, thus the German Army ended up losing the entire German Sixth Army to the Russians. Cornwallis found himself in a similar situation in 1781, he did not want to retreat to Charleston, but he did not have the troops to take and hold North Caroline. Thus boxed in Cornwallis decided to attack the American Supply basis in Virgina, which lead to Yorktown and the lost of everything the British had taken on the American South since 1779 (and also the War of American Independence).

People in a box, will attack because they can not or will not do what is really needed, In the case of the Palestinians the Israelis must accept the fact that they will have a hostile population in their border for a long time. The Israelis do NOT want to have hostile neighbors, but they must accept that fact. The Israelis must give to the Palestinians complete control over the West Bank and Gaza and permit development of ports and other ways to get trade into and out of Gaza and the West Bank independent of Israeli control. Free access to Jerusalem to all parties have to be accepted, with the Palestinians and Israelis controlling different parts of Jerusalem The Israelis do not want the Palestinians to have complete control of the West Bank and Gaza but that is what the Israelis must give to the Palestinians (Including the right to import ANY weapon the Palestinians want and to build up whatever type of Army the Palestinians want, even if this means the Palestinians will have the ability to invade Israel proper).

Israel does NOT want to give the Palestinians the above, they want the PLO to use its influence to keep the poor Palestinians in check and happy with the status quo (Something Hamas opposes and something Arafat could and would not force his people to accept).

At the same time the occupation and attempts to control the West Bank and Gaza is draining Israeli resources. The Israelis want the opposition to Israel in the West Bank and Gaza to stop, but do NOT want to give full independence to the West Bank and Gaza. Thus the Israelis do NOT want to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, but they know they can not stay. Thus I can see the Israelis attacking Syria and Iran for supporting Hamas. It is impossible for the Israelis to stay in the West Bank and Gaza but the Israelis do NOT want to withdraw complete from the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis are in a box and have to do SOMETHING. Want is truly needed is politically unacceptable, thus I foresee an Attacking Syria and Iran even through such an attack would do more harm then good to the Israelis.

[plasticsundance]

2. Nice analysis of the mentality

War is an expensive proposition for Israel. I once read that it costs several million dollars just to operate the Merkava tanks for one day in Gaza. However, I cannot attest to the veracity of that statement. Even the blockade of Lebanon doesn't come on the cheap, and this is not a good prospect for wars that will be interminable.

The very path they have chosen, has paved the way towards their destruction.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. thank you..I think you hit a number of good points

Most Americans don't realize that almost every single Palestinian would gladly accept a single state which included the current Israeli state along with the West Bank and the Gaza IF it included full EQUALITY of democratic citizenship rights for both Jews and Palestinians living together in peace as EQUAL citizens. This is unacceptable to the Israeli state because it would in the not so distant future mean a significant Palestinian majority.

The two-state solution based on the 1967 border has been unanimously endorsed by the Arab League and the Palestinian Authority. Even Hamas has acknowledged that they would accept it. However this is actually their second choice.

The difficulty for the Israeli state is how to get the Palestinians out of the way while maintaining real control of the territory and its resources; especially water. A pseudo-state for Palestine seems to be what the Israeli state thinks is the answer since annexation or expulsion are not politically viable options.

I'm reading a really good book right now by Professor Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University, The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003 - Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Map-Nowhere-Israel-Palestine/dp/1844670767/ref=sr_11_1/002-4750258-7334423?ie=UTF8

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

7. There Will Not Be A Single State, Sir

That is simply not a practicable solution, and never was. Each side is quite convinced, and with good reason, the other would use majority political power to destroy the minority. It is not going to happen, and cannot be viewed as a serious propsal towards a resolution of the conflict. From the Israeli point of view, it is simply defeat by another name, and the Israeli state is far from defeated, and has no reason whatever to act as it it had been.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. I agree that does not appear a possibility under foreseeable circumstances

although I do wonder at times that if settlement expansion continues, will the 2-state option become completely inviable? How would that mesh with the reality that the Palestinian population will in the future outnumber the Jewish population?

Until the early 90's Likud completely rejected the possibility of a 2-state solution under any circumstances. If they did intend to permanently keep what they called Judea and Samaria, what could they possibly have foreseen in the long term?

[The Magistrate]

9. If That Is The Course Matters Do Take, Sir

Those persons presently outside of Israel, and their descendants, will not become citizens of the place. It would be unfortunate should matters proceed to such a pass, and the surest way to avoid it would be a complete cessation of violence directed towards Israel and Israelis by Arab Palestinians, and other militant bodies, and acceptance of Israel's existance by all Moslem powers as a legitimate state with a right to peaceful existence within its present boundaries.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. well I do not think Palestinian violence helps matters. However

cease fires from the Palestinian side keep getting met with selective assassinations and other acts of violence from the Israeli side thus making the maintenance of a cease fire impossible. I'm sure the Israeli intellegence services, military and political leadership are smart enough to know that.

The Arab League and the Palestinian authority have made it quite clear that in exchange for full withdrawal -- full recognition by every Arab state is offered. The refugee question is more complicated. But indications are that this is bridgeable. A pseudo-state is not an option.

[The Magistrate]

12. Cease-Fire Is Not Sufficient, Sir

The militant bodies must cease all operations and disband and disarm entirely.

The matter of recognition of Israel's legitimate existance as a state, and right to peaceful existence, is not a thing for exchange: it is a pre-condition. Without it, nothing but unilateral action in Israel's best interest as Israel defines it is possible, and without it, there is no possibility Israel will define its best interests in anything but military terms.

There is not going to be admission to Israel as citizens of the descendants of those persons who fled lands now part of Israel in '48. There ought to be money compensation to the heirs of lost properties, but so long as it is not explicitly accepted by Arab Palestinians, and Arabs and Moslems in general, that no one not now resident or citizen of Israel is going to become either as part of a peace settlement, there will continue to be no such settlement.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. a cease fire would be a good first step

a unilateral disarmament without guarantees is not going to happen. For the Palestinian Authority to forcibly disband the various political groups would mean civil war and the destruction of what remains of a functioning civil society

It is international law that declares the right of return. Every credible international human rights organization including the International Committee of the Red Cross and every other independent group is in unanimous agreement. Since this is not politically viable and is not going to happen, it does not seem unreasonable to me that the Palestinian Authority would want to hold on to at least one bargaining chip. They don't have many others. According to Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Israeli Foreign Minister and chief negotiator at the talks in Taba, Egypt in January 2001, agreement on the refugee matter came extremely close.

[The Magistrate]

14. In That Case, Sir

The thing will be fought out to military victory by one side or the other, and will in the interim persist as the present stalemate, which costs the Arab Palestinians a great deal, and Israel very little.

If the Palestine Authority cannot crush the militant bodies, then neither can it deliver them, to any peace it negotiates, which means there is no point whatever to negotiating with it.

It is not a good negotiating tactic to cling to a demand that is not ever going to be satisfied; all that is gained by this is convincing others you are not serious about reaching a settlement, and may indeed be seriously out of touch with realities of the situation. Better to turn the talk to cold cash, the universal solvent of human affairs.

My comments in this, Sir, you should be aware, are not particularly rooted in preferences of my own, but in analysis of what the actual situation is. If peace cannot come without things being done that one or both sides will not do, then there will be no peace, and war will continue. But absent some radical alteration of the situation, a sort of thing that by definition cannot be readily anticipated or foreseen, continuation of war does far more harm to Arab Palestinians than to Israelis.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. I'm afraid one way or another the conflict will continue for the

foreseeable future. But for the long term interest of the Jewish people of Israel there is something unsustainable going on. The time, demographics and geography is simply not on their side; not in the long term.

If I may Sir, respectfully suggest that if one takes a close look at the reality of day to day life offered by the Israeli state to the Palestinian people, even during the best of times, even during times of relative peace, even to the Palestinian citizen of Israel, who are the most privileged of all Palestinians; something very, very wrong is going on; something that cannot be morally justified, something that cannot be sustained forever.

[The Magistrate]

16. Moral Justification, Sir, Is Not My Line

There has not been a moment for many decades when the relation of the peoples was not one of war, and the basic method of war is to make wretched the existence of the other side. So long as people choose war when other alternatives are available, they bear the responsibility for, and consequences of, that choice. Neither the course of war, nor its outcomes, have anything at all do with justice or morality.

"In the long run, we're all dead."

[Phx_Dem]

5. your box analogy

You really don't see how the Palestinians built this box? Intifada II ring a bell? Your assertion that Israel will attack Syria and Iran is absurd.

[happyslug]

6. So if you see a trap laid by your enemy you don't just jump in.

And that is what the Israeli's did in 1967. Israeli's first Prime Minster, David Ben-Gurion was still alive and his advice was to take what Israel needed to defend itself AND GIVE THE REST BACK (Mostly just Jerusalem). Instead Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza hoping to trade both for concessions from the Arabs (As turning back Gaza to Egypt brought with it a Peach Treaty with Egypt).

The problem was Gaza Israel had no strategic use for after the Value of the Suez Canal as a Tank Trap was shown to be a failure in the Yom Kipper war of 1973. Gaza is almost at the same level, but it is tied in with the West Bank. Both together represent Palestinians living under Israeli Rule. What do you do with the Palestinians? Genocide is NOT an option for the Israelis, thus some sort of arrangement has to be made between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Once both places saw they power during the first Intifada, the Israeli lost they ability to rule both areas WITHOUT the co-operation of the Palestinians themselves. To get the Palestinians Co-operation the Israelis have to give them something REAL, i.e. REAL POWER as a sovereign Nation, including the POWER to go to war with Israel. Israel does not want to give the Palestinians that power but the Palestinians already have that power in the form of the Intifada and the Intifada II.

Yes, the Palestinians forced the Israelis into the box, but even Ben-Gurion knew what the Israelis would be getting into by de facto annexing these two areas (and opposed it). You can NOT occupy land where the overwhelming majority oppose your presence. That opposition is the problem Israeli has with the West Bank and Gaza and the sooner the Israelis accept the advice of Ben-Gurion to vacate both areas the better off Israel will be (and if that means Hamas ends up ruling both the West Bank and Gaza, Israel has to learn to live with that fact).

[Lithos]

11. Historically speaking

Such a mentality does not always lead to failure. Witness General Scott's campaign from Veracruz to Mexico City in 1847. He abandoned his lines of communication and supply in order to make the decisive strike. The Duke of Wellington made his infamous comment that "Scott is Lost". The same went with General Rommell in his first campaign in Cyrenacia and in his attacks against Tobruk in the Battle of Gazala where he took a smaller force in a very risky end-run to surprise the enemy. MacArthur's invasion of Inchon is a similar strategy.

As the investment people say, the greater the risk, the greater the potential rewards. Same is true in war.

L-

On Edit: I forgot to add about the original article. Any military will make tentative plans for any situation, it's the job of military planners to make sure the nation is not ever taken by surprise. The US for instance had war plans against Canada in the 1930's and I think beyond that time. I'm also fairly sure that Iran has developed plans against Israel as well.

One advantage of such a thing is that if done right, it will present real costs and real feedback to the political layer which probably in both the Israeli and Iranian cases will give pause to even the most hardline advocate.

L-

[bemildred]

18. Three comments:

1.) It seems obvious that if one has no good options, one wants at least to avoid tentativeness. Thus for someone with no better ideas, audacity may well be the best option, and it may at times be the tactically correct response, your best shot. On the other hand, it may just be desperation.

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

2.) It seems obvious that the opponents of the current Israeli regime (such a nice, loaded word, eh?) stand little chance of defeating it so long as it enjoys the backing of the USA, and so long as the USA maintains it's position. Well what does one do if one is not willing to give up? What would the USA do when faced with someone it despises but cannot attack directly? Why you attack them indirectly, politically, militarily, economically, tear at the threads of the political and social fabric. That is what is going on in Iraq, in fact that is what everybody is doing in Iraq right now. That is what "terrorism" is all about. That is what the strategic bombing of Lebanon that just occurred was all about, an indirect attack where a direct attack (on Hizbullah) was inadvisable. In the end, Israel wound up attacking directly anyway.

Of course, these measures will also commonly be used in hot wars. This is what is meant by the statement that war is the "continuation of politics (Politik) by other means".

3.) The notion that the opponents of Israel should give up is based on the premise that the advantage that Israel currently enjoys will be durable. The notion that they should continue to resist, on the premise that it will not. One can point to evidence that suggests either might be true.

"Time is a tailor specializing in alterations" -- Don't know

[msmcghee]

19. Not necessarily agreeing, but good points. n/t

[The Magistrate]

20. An Excellent Analysis, Sir

Point three in particular is the sort of thing that makes it necessary always to actually run the horses around the track before any money changes hands.

[Lithos]

21. Not sure why you replied to me

But your comments are intriguing.

1.) It seems obvious that if one has no good options, one wants at least to avoid tentativeness. Thus for someone with no better ideas, audacity may well be the best option, and it may at times be the tactically correct response, your best shot. On the other hand, it may just be desperation.

It means anything. Changes outside of the status quo are an essential part of altering the initiative in a conflict, a chance to set the tempo. The real issue is if there is enough force and inertia to affect any useful leverage. The Battle of the Bulge was an example where the Wehrmacht took the initiative, but had only limited inertia (gas, time, weather) in order to take their objectives. They failed and the Allies were able to reverse the initiative and recover.

2.) It seems obvious that the opponents of the current Israeli regime (such a nice, loaded word, eh?) stand little chance of defeating it so long as it enjoys the backing of the USA, and so long as the USA maintains it's position. Well what does one do if one is not willing to give up? What would the USA do when faced with someone it despises but cannot attack directly? Why you attack them indirectly, politically, militarily, economically, tear at the threads of the political and social fabric. That is what is going on in Iraq, in fact that is what everybody is doing in Iraq right now. That is what "terrorism" is all about. That is what the strategic bombing of Lebanon that just occurred was all about, an indirect attack where a direct attack (on Hizbullah) was inadvisable. In the end, Israel wound up attacking directly anyway.

When you can't fight symmetrically, your only other option is asymmetric warfare. Requires different tactics on the part of the other side. The use of kamikaze in WWII was such an example. Had Operations Olympic and Cornet ocurred, the US would have had to have changed their tactics dramatically.

Of course, these measures will also commonly be used in hot wars. This is what is meant by the statement that war is the "continuation of politics (Politik) by other means".

Or politics is the continuation of war during times of "peace".

3.) The notion that the opponents of Israel should give up is based on the premise that the advantage that Israel currently enjoys will be durable. The notion that they should continue to resist, on the premise that it will not. One can point to evidence that suggests either might be true.

Or they reach a time and place where war no longer achieves useful objectives. Essentially it is not in either party's benefit to continue.

L-

[bemildred]

22. You got me thinking.

So you get the response. It would be nice if everyone were to decide that it's a dumb dispute, which it arguably is, settle matters, make peace, and go tend their own gardens. There is always the third way, through the horns of the dilemma.

[msmcghee]

24. Those who believe that their God sent them . .

. . to destroy their enemies have a difficult time believing that their God would set them to fighting and killing and dieing for a "dumb dispute". I don't think "smart" and "dumb" are boxes on the Arab Jeopardy wall.

It's my impression that people on the left sometimes have no real appreciation for the strength of religious-like beliefs to dominate a person's mind. Remember that Arab children are taught from pre-school age that Jews are the devil who killed Muhammad's prophets - and that dieing in the struggle to kill Jews is the highest way to honor your family and Allah. Simply compare the number of left Arab-support organizations in Israel (many) with the left Jewish-support organizations in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, etc. - zero.

That is why very few Arabs in the ME will ever come to the reasonable conclusion that making peace with Israel might make logical sense and be in everyone's best interest. IMO - it is not a conclusion that their minds could produce. (Some Arabs have overcome the worst of that programming, however I think they moved to Dearborn.)

It's my experience that people at DU tend to be secular and typically have no experience with such powerful messianic belief systems (unlike FR). That's a difference between the far right and the far left IMO. This causes them to think that if the Arabs have such a deep-seated and complete hatred of Israel - such a state of enmity could logically only be the result of extremely unfair/deceptive/brutal treatment by Israel. They are looking for a logical explanation.

IMO - the sad truth is that there is nothing Israel could ever do that would cause those Arabs in the ME to want to make peace.

Note that this is only my opinion of the matter and I could be wrong. I'm sure many here will think that I am wrong. I just ask that you consider the possibility.

[Lithos]

25. Yeah

I think it's a dumb dispute caused more by equal parts ego, xenophobia and greed on all sides. But then again, I'm an idealist who is forced to be a pragmatist.

L-

[bemildred]

23. PS: "inertia"

A useful concept, I had not really thought of it that way, but that is exactly the right idea.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.