2008-2009 Gaza Conflict: Discussion & Analysis

[Firn]

Some thoughts:

From the pattern of the Israeli attacks emerge some considerations:

a) The first strikes which hit targets of high importance to the status of Hamas and the objectives of Israel in the densly populated areas where carried out almost exclusively by the IAF. This is traditionally the branch of all armed forces which is usually best equipped to deliver precision strikes, and this is also true for the IAF.

b) There were certainly efforts via telephone and flyers to give some inhabitants early warnings of deliberate attacks. We can not know if this procedure was always followed after the first unwarned strikes but surly the efforts (and possibilities to do so) were considerably greater than in other recent MOUT operations.

c) The choice of Hamas to use the urban clutter (structures, civilians) to hide themselves, their weapons and their launch platforms forced Isreal to attack there if they wanted to reduce the rocket attacks.

d) The ground push was clearly supported with a great deal of firepower (artillery, mortars, CAS) with especially the direct firesupport by tanks playing a major role. It seems that the ROE were markedly lower where troops were directly engaged by Hamas. Although tanks are seen as the symbols of unbridled force they can actually deliver often far more accurate fire support than the artillery with dumb rounds, as they are much closer to the target. With the right rounds a precise effect can be achieved. Actually the friendly-fire incidents show the willingness to give very close firesupport very rapidly, sometimes with tragic consequences. But in the end this may keep the overall friendly casualities down. The heavy use of tank fire should also have lowered the numbers of wounded and killed civilians as it replaced sometimes heavy artillery fire.

 

[Feanor]

Durendal your posts are bordering on flamebaiting, and are definelty not appropriate in this thread. This thread is for MILTARY ANALYSIS of the conflict in Gaza. Please refrain from political commentary.

 

[OPSSG]

You have to understand the Nazi's would bomb civilian cities.
As the Israeli's kill civilians.

Feanor, I differ from your interpretation. IMHO, Durendal intends to be offensive (and I've selected the offensive part of his post). From this point on, I shall read Durendal's future posts with a suspicious eye.

I do not think he intends to be objective or discuss it within the normal DT confines. And more importantly his form of bias/subjectivity is blinkered to other military considerations and he shows no ability to appreciate the military considerations / limitations / ROEs.

 

[Feanor]

I just re-read his posts more carefully (after seeing your comment) and I agree.

Durendal this is a warning. Political discussion, and attempts to derail threads to suit your own political agenda are against the rules. Read the rules and follow them.

 

[bruceedwards]

No, the Israelis were telephoning buildings from early on in the operation to warn civilians to clear out of the way. This isn't new.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24855309-2,00.html

The civilian casualty count would have been much higher if the Israelis had not taken this and many other preventative measures. It also would have been a lot lower if Hamas had not insisted on stockpiling its weapons in mosques and apartment buildings, and firing them from school yards.

I can recall from early-on in the Gaza operation, accounts of the Israelis telephoning a building in advance to warn the civilians to escape, only to have Hamas order civilians to climb on the rooftop to deter the Israelis from bombing their weapons store houses. The Israelis, in turn, reacted by sending a smaller, precision missile to "knock" at the corner of the building, as a further warning for the civilians to evacuate - before the site was actually bombed.

These and other measures that the Israelis took to minimize civilian casualties have been recognized by those who are actually familiar with military operations in urban areas. The interview below is with a British Colonel who led UK forces in Afghanistan. In his words, "I don't think that there has ever been a time in the history of warfare, when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza."
YouTube - BBC: Former British Army Colonel Richard Kemp Discusses IDF Gaza Ops

Thanks Fltworthy - I had no idea that Israel was doing this from early in the conflict.

I would agree with the assessment that they have certainly gone far out of their way to minimise civilian casualties. Of course, this was not always portrayed clearly in the media - I have had many arguments with friends who had been convinced by the news (or at least their interpretation of it) that Israel was out to murder eveyone in Gaza, whereas given the heavily populated areas they were hitting it was in fact shocking that not more people were killed.

Of course this illustrates the fact that Hamas has waged a very, very savvy media campaign. My anecdotal experience is that Hamas - despite baiting Israel into attacking - has come out of this being well regarded by many people who had never heard of them until recently.

 

[willowjones]

On January 15, the IDF shelled a storage facility within the compound of the UN headquarters for Gaza, containing tons of food and sheltering hundreds of Palestinian refugees. According to United Nations personnel, unexploded ordnance analysis demonstrates that the compound was hit with 155m white phosphorus ammunition. The facility did not have the equipment to extinguish the chemical fire and it spread towards several fuel tanks. The UN asked the IDF for a local ceasefire in order to try to put out the fires, but the request was denied. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon expressed "strong protest and outrage". An Israeli Defence Spokesperson was quoted as saying "We regret that such an incident occurred, I am sorry for it however Hamas fired rockets and troops received fire coming from within the site." The United Nations has dismissed the Israeli explanation as "total nonsense". A senior UN official who was inside the building when it was attacked also denounced the Israeli statements as false and said that there were only non combatants in the building.

 

[ARI78]

On January 15, the IDF shelled a storage facility within the compound of the UN headquarters for Gaza, containing tons of food and sheltering hundreds of Palestinian refugees. According to United Nations personnel, unexploded ordnance analysis demonstrates that the compound was hit with 155m white phosphorus ammunition. The facility did not have the equipment to extinguish the chemical fire and it spread towards several fuel tanks. The UN asked the IDF for a local ceasefire in order to try to put out the fires, but the request was denied. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon expressed "strong protest and outrage". An Israeli Defence Spokesperson was quoted as saying "We regret that such an incident occurred, I am sorry for it however Hamas fired rockets and troops received fire coming from within the site." The United Nations has dismissed the Israeli explanation as "total nonsense". A senior UN official who was inside the building when it was attacked also denounced the Israeli statements as false and said that there were only non combatants in the building.

After considering all measures taken to avoid civilian casualties, it is difficult to point at one incident as an example for the contrary. Please keep in mind Hamas had stocked weapons in mosques and schools (all well documented), and reports were made of shooting from the compound area. Also, there was evidence of secondary explosions from within the compound.

 

[Firn]

Given the inherent friction in war in general and especially in such a conflict where even lower ranks have high individual responsability it is impossible to generalize a specific action by a certain group of person at a specific point in time. More worrying have been the presumed actions committed by various lower commanders and individual soldiers which made news around the globe. There seems to be some substance to it, and it is disturbing but once again one should not hastly draw a general conclusion out of it.

 

[OPSSG]

Given the inherent friction in war in general and especially in such a conflict where even lower ranks have high individual responsability it is impossible to generalize a specific action by a certain group of person at a specific point in time. More worrying have been the presumed actions committed by various lower commanders and individual soldiers which made news around the globe. There seems to be some substance to it, and it is disturbing but once again one should not hastly draw a general conclusion out of it.

You should take a look at a monograph from the Combined Arms Centre by an Israeli, Ariel Siegelman called 'From Lebanon to Gaza: A New Kind of War'. As expected, this article contains a distinctly Israeli perspective. There is some commentary on this topic on a blog called 'Kings of War' with regards to 'Security Threats in the 21st Century', with quotes from the Siegelman monograph.

The Siegelman monograph should be read with an article by Stephen D. Biddle and Jeffrey A. Friedman, called 'The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy'. In this context, Hezbollah’s 2006 campaign in southern Lebanon has been receiving increasing attention as a prominent recent example of a nonstate actor fighting a Westernized state. In particular, critics of irregular-warfare transformation often cite the 2006 case as evidence that non-state actors can nevertheless wage conventional warfare in state-like ways.

 

[Firn]

Thanks, I read all the articles.

From Siegelman, page three onwards.

A new kind of enemy has become formidable over the last ten years. Western armies can look to Lebanon and Gaza to gain lessons for operating against this enemy. Even now, the Western concept of warfare is quite conventional, prompting us to think that if we can capture terri-tory, and certainly if we can neutralize the enemy's leadership, we will win. And we are confused when, no matter how well we do on the battle-field, the enemy continues and even increases its attacks. What we have not yet come to grips with is that the enemy is not playing by our rules. The new war is unconventional and is motivated by ideology.

Look at "Arming the people" of Clausewitz. Even the worst defeat on the "convential battlefield" should not mean automatically mean overall defeat. The Guerilleros did also not play by the rules of regular forces and were in countries like Spain and Sovietrussia also often a scourge to the own people.

The enemy cannot hope to match Western technology, so he operates in a way to make the technology relatively meaningless. He simply refuses to meet the conventional army on the battlefield. The Western army invades enemy lands with almost no resistance, even cap-tures the enemy's leadership, developing the erroneous con-ception that victory has been achieved. Only then do the con-ventional soldiers begin being blown up by an enemy that can-not be identified or differenti-ated from the civilian population.

Take again a look at my posts about "Arming the people" and keep in mind his fourth variant of the strategic defence where he shows that a deliberate deep retreat into the own country or even other friendly countries combined with fortresses and "armed peasantry" and small army detachments working against the strategic flanks can be a way to overcome a greatly superior enemy. In this case Hamas retreats into the strategic depth of the civilian population, made possible by the limiting influence of ethnical thinking and the international community on the Israeli warfare.

The conventional soldier has no idea of how to operate in this environment because he is looking for a uniformed foe. A nine year-old child with a bomb does not fit the Western model of “combatant” and takes soldiers by surprise. The conquest of territory by a Western army only brings new targets closer to the terrorist so that he does not need to travel as far to blow up Western targets. It does not serve to bring the enemy to his knees. Likewise, Middle Eastern societies are tribal in nature and are fiercely proud of their ideology. They will not play chess with a conventional army, accepting defeat simply because their king is captured or their territory is occupied.

Neither did the Spanish or Tyroleans or Russians. Take the Tyrolean uprising. Boys would scout ahead and load their father's guns on their battlefield. Women and old men would help to support their relatives and sometimes even fight. Small and large detachments would be ambushed at bridges, in canyons using improvised avalanche devices. The plentiful sharpshooters would attack, cause havoc and disperse. Small and large Garrisons would be encircled or taken by surprise. Often victories came at little cost for the guerillas and caused very heavy allied casualities. Fiercely anti-french and anti-liberal they would depict the enemy as a satanic force in the "holy land Tyrol". Even if external battles ended in a formal peace not much later news of Austrian or anti-Napoleonic forces would rekindle the flames of war in Tyrol which united three intermixed ethnic groups speaken three languages and many different dialects.

After having presented here the chapter of Clausewitz about "Arming the people" and reading this fine piece I was surprised how relevant he is still today.

Btw: I recently discovered that the German mourning [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5EYQc16QhU"]Der gute Kamerad[/ame] was written under impression of the use of "German" units against the "German" insurgents in Tyrol.

 

[OPSSG]

Take again a look at my posts about "Arming the people" and keep in mind his fourth variant of the strategic defence where he shows that a deliberate deep retreat into the own country or even other friendly countries combined with fortresses and "armed peasantry" and small army detachments working against the strategic flanks can be a way to overcome a greatly superior enemy. In this case Hamas retreats into the strategic depth of the civilian population, made possible by the limiting influence of ethical thinking and the international community on the Israeli warfare.

IMHO, without a doubt, Clausewitz is still relevant but there are limits to our ability to apply theory to certain situations. I know I have not made much comment on this topic as I want to be cautious in potentially contentious threads, such as this.

I'm not sure of how to categorize the Hamas group in Clausewitz's terms - as I see Hamas partially as a group of armed people imposing their will on the other Palestinian people, via violence, if there is dissent. So I'm not sure if we can call this 'arming the people' but rather having a armed group within the population. There is an article called 'Under Cover of War: Hamas Political Violence in Gaza', which documents the alleged Hamas extra judicial killings of suspected collaborators and various incidents of the maiming of Palestinians by masked gun men.

RIP to the German soldiers, who have fallen in the line of duty and all the innocent fallen civilians in the Gaza conflict.

 

[TonyRyan]

It's difficult for military personnel to be objective in their analysis of a civilian conflict situation if words like terrorist are used. Strictly speaking, the term applies to an external force intimidating local people; not local people retaliating against an invader or occupier. I am sure we would all reject being called terrorists simply because we had the temerity to fight against an invader of our own country.

In the case of Hamas, it was democratically elected by Palestinians; and of course they shot traitors. Wouldn't we? Hamas is defending its people against invasion, hegemony and occupation and, regardless of whose side we favour, if we want global credibility we need to step outside the propaganda puddle.

Personally, I think this is unjust to defense personnel, who must obey orders anyway, but the Geneva Accords and Nuremberg changed all that. For those with a little vision, it is clear from realities such as 17 of the G20 nations restoring tariffs, that the present free market theology is about to crash and those who opposed it will come to the fore. It is a foregone conclusion that many actions of the past three decades will be reviewed unfavourably, and serving personnel would be wise to keep their hands clean. If history has taught us anything, the current UN investigation into recent events in Gaza will only be the first of many.

 

[TonyRyan]

Hamas

A quick qualification, I don't recall anyone posting here using the word 'terrorist'. I refer to the US-imposed status of 'terrorist' against Hamas, which has been reflected in almost all media and other reports; quite unreasonably in the opinion of most UN members.

 

[Firn]

IMHO, without a doubt, Clausewitz is still relevant but there are limits to our ability to apply theory to certain situations. I know I have not made much comment on this topic as I want to be cautious in potentially contentious threads, such as this.

I agree that there is a inherent limit in the finer application of theory, but think that it is very important to try to understand the strategic framework. The perhaps best suited to do so in relation to War is IMHO Clausewitz. He is, so the speak, a major journey we have to undertake to try to understand the issue. That our subjective understanding is as always limited lies in the nature of all things.


So what is Hamas? Hard to tell, a decent guess seems a combination of the following:

a) Hamas is a poltical party which has won fair democratic elections and has won and solidified the political power and part of the popular support by a wide array of means among them physical violence against the opposition (PLO) and external foes.

b) Hamas is a NGO which collects money and ressources and distribuitions through its organisation to achieve specific goals and to get international (mostly arabic) and local poplar support and new ressources.

c) Hamas is a terrorist organisation which fights against Israel, rival organisations (PLO) and possibly arab goverments.

Here we see at least three different forms and shades which change in space and time but can also coexist in different compositions.

 

[TonyRyan]

It is pure Jingoism to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, especially as we are not engaged against the Palestinians and there is no compulsion to develop an appropriate attitude against a foe.

The PLO grew from the original resistance movement against the Stern Gang of terrorists and, following the '67 war, leadership was assumed by Yasser Arafat of al Fatah. Eventually Mossad and other Israeli and US interests achieved predominent influence over the aging Arafat and dismayed Palestinians formed Hamas, eventually democratically winning political representation of Palestinians as well. Abbas and the PLO are not regarded as political opposition but as a propaganda wing of the enemy, and they deal with them as such. The media has seriously misrepresented the situation.

This was, and always has been, a resistance movement against a well resourced and highly aggressive invader, one that has made no secret of its intention to control the region well beyond Palestine; and I don't hear anyone calling the French or Polish resistance terrorists for fighting back, even if they too enacted reprisals.

Secondly, Hamas has developed dialogue with the whole world, but forced to do so through empathetic organisations. Nevertheless, these too are banned from the Oz media. Clearly, we deny Palestinians justice or objectivity, and the people of Australia are denied a free flow of information, which is essential for our own democracy. Yet, in a 2006 survey, 76% of Aussies condemned Israel's invasion of Lebanon and 74% did not support Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Given that defense is meant to be about defense, and Hamas could not conceivably be a threat to Australia, the question must be asked, why are we even using the word terrorism in this context? Obviously, this all flows from the media, who have been leading the issue from the outset. And it is here that we find our first clue: the most influential media-owner is Rupert Murdoch, who has long championed the Israeli objective and who is a proclaimed Zionist. It is not stretching logic to ask, who appointed Murdoch as our Commander in Chief? which is effectively what he has become.

This is a legitimate question as every major military decision made in more than a decade has has complied with his will, but not that of the majority of Australians.

This also misrepresents genuine Australian intentions to our nearest neighbour, Indonesia, also with obvious defense implications.

 

[OPSSG]

It is pure Jingoism to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, especially as we are not engaged against the Palestinians and there is no compulsion to develop an appropriate attitude against a foe.

The PLO grew from the original resistance movement against the Stern Gang of terrorists and, following the '67 war, leadership was assumed by Yasser Arafat of al Fatah. Eventually Mossad and other Israeli and US interests achieved predominent influence over the aging Arafat and dismayed Palestinians formed Hamas, eventually democratically winning political representation of Palestinians as well. Abbas and the PLO are not regarded as political opposition but as a propaganda wing of the enemy, and they deal with them as such. The media has seriously misrepresented the situation.

This was, and always has been, a resistance movement against a well resourced and highly aggressive invader, one that has made no secret of its intention to control the region well beyond Palestine; and I don't hear anyone calling the French or Polish resistance terrorists for fighting back, even if they too enacted reprisals.

Secondly, Hamas has developed dialogue with the whole world, but forced to do so through empathetic organisations. Nevertheless, these too are banned from the Oz media. Clearly, we deny Palestinians justice or objectivity, and the people of Australia are denied a free flow of information, which is essential for our own democracy. Yet, in a 2006 survey, 76% of Aussies condemned Israel's invasion of Lebanon and 74% did not support Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Given that defense is meant to be about defense, and Hamas could not conceivably be a threat to Australia, the question must be asked, why are we even using the word terrorism in this context? Obviously, this all flows from the media, who have been leading the issue from the outset. And it is here that we find our first clue: the most influential media-owner is Rupert Murdoch, who has long championed the Israeli objective and who is a proclaimed Zionist. It is not stretching logic to ask, who appointed Murdoch as our Commander in Chief? which is effectively what he has become.

This is a legitimate question as every major military decision made in more than a decade has has complied with his will, but not that of the majority of Australians.

This also misrepresents genuine Australian intentions to our nearest neighbour, Indonesia, also with obvious defense implications.

Kindly note that Firn's and my posts are dealing with the applicability of Clausewitz's theory on war. Any political reference is incidental to the Clausewitz discussion and not the main focus.

As a fellow forum member, I ask you to reconsider your approach in posting in contentious defence matters threads and posting style as I believe your point of view may be seen by some other forum members as offensive.

Kindly consider:

(i) sticking to the limitations specified in this thread:
(ii) take heed of the Moderator warnings in this thread,
(iii) read the Ban list; and
(iv) read DT's forum rules.​

I believe your above post:

(i) presents your purely subjective political point of view;
(ii) does not contain any analysis of the Israeli or Hamas military actions/tactics in the Gaza conflict; and
(iii) is not supported by links or references.​

 

[Preceptor]

Necro thread locked and will remain so. Members have 24 hours to go back and remove any posting or commentary which fails to abide by the forum rules, and/or the thread topic which is the 2008-2009 Gaza Conflict. Failure to clean up the offending post(s) will result in the Mod team doing so, with punative measures as well. If members wish to discuss their feelings on other countries groups, heaping blame or praise on them for whatever reason they are certainly free to do so, but do it elsewhere. DT is a place to discuss defence matters, not politics, religion or worse still, a mixture of the two.
-Preceptor

 

[Preceptor]

Nearly 48 hours have past from the time the thread was locked until now. The fftopic posts have been removed, but not by the original posters. At present, a decision will be reached by the Mod team in terms of punative measures for the offending posters. In the future, requirements set by Moderators are not suggestions, do not treat them as such.
-Preceptor