Middle East Defence & Security

[STURM]

I don’t think this initiative, as a framework, will survive with Netanyahu, despite him having made some positive noises on it at one time or another. I am cynical of Netanyahu. More importantly, I am sick of his tricks.

I’m cynical of all politicians. Netanyahu is a politician; he wants to stay in power and he has a voter base to keep happy. Let’s not even get into Arab leaders.

As for the plan; of course it won’t be accepted by him but the question really; is he even interested in a peace plans at all? Is he actually open or committed to the idea of a future Palestinian state; even one in which Israel’s security is not compromised; one whose access to international borders are largely controlled or can be by Israel and one which is “demilitarised”.

Bear in mind that during the 1960’s and 1970’s it was hoped by Israel that the Palestinian issue would eventually go away; Palestinian refugees (including those in Gaza who of course are not originally from there); being absorbed by Jordan, Egypt. Syria and Lebanon. This of course never happened.

The 2nd question is even if both sides were willing to make the needed compromises to each a settlement; is a future Palestinian state even viable given the rate that Palestinian land is being taken for Israeli settlements.

It’s 2021 and we will probably still be talking about this in 2031. The region will still be unstable and “hardliners/hawks” from various countries (in and out of the region) will like it that way; for their own ends. Unless compromises are made by both sides there will never be peace. Israel can have peace or land but not both; irrespective of its military might and the near unconditional diplomatic and other support it enjoys from Uncle Sam.

The Palestinians also need to make deep compromises as part of a peace plan which is not lopsided and doesn’t come with too many pre-conditions from the onset; which the Palestinian leadership would never get the people to accept. What’s also needed is an outside neutral impartial broker.

I still maintain that as far as the region goes; both sides are to blame. Nobody has a monopoly in suffering, truth and justice. Everybody is entitled to security and the right to defend themselves; nobody should be denied the right to live freely in their own sovereign state.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

8. Trump / Kushner’s one-sided peace proposal opened the door to Israel’s annexation of 30% of the West Bank. It was a veil of insincerity that Kushner thought he could broker. If anyone believed that the negotiated "peace plan" was real, they were just naive.

(a) ...​

(b) Trump’s faulty approach to the Israel-Palestinian peace process have set the stage where at the G-20, at EU, and within ASEAN, no diplomat from these countries can undertake any initiative to support Israel’s borderline illegal actions in the last 6 months (prior to the latest evictions as a trigger event) — understood correctly, Trump and Netanyahu degraded Israel’s security, not enhanced it.​

I personally believe Trump's approach was correct. All his predecessors had tried the same approach, and always failed miserably.

The principles by which the Trump admin went, which were absent before him:
1. Integrate the Arab world into the peace deal, and recognize the Arab League's influence on the Palestinians.
2. Separate the Palestinian peace process from the Arab League peace process.

His actions therefore resulted in:
1. A map that was vastly different from any of the previous failed maps, which were all nearly identical.
2. His map also addressed the pressing Palestinian issues of development of Gaza, and a land bridge between the two Palestinian territories.
3. He also addressed pressing Palestinian issues outside Palestine, such as the ongoing humanitarian crisis in refugee camps, primarily in Syria.
4. Pressure from all sponsors of Palestine to accept the plan, which were its only allies.
5. A row of peaceful gestures, diplomatic ties formation, and outright peace treaties with Israel, because Arab states could paint Palestine as a chronic rejectionist to sell the new agreements to the public.
6. The section that allowed Israel to annex West Bank territory right away was effectively used to get peace with the UAE. I believe it was done with that intent.

The PA boycotted the peace plan long before any details even emerged. But the end result is that there's more pressure than ever before on Palestine to accept a peace treaty.

(a) This means that the conditions are so unbalanced that to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, big concessions from Israel is required.​

That was true if Israel and Palestine are equals. But Israel is the stronger state, and it has legal legitimacy to do whatever it pleases to advance its own interests. If the Palestinians want to get something, they need to try to convince Israel to negotiate.
You don't try to negotiate equal terms from a position of weakness.
Right now they and the international community are banking on Israel as a democratic and western state with shared values, to make big concessions because it would be the humane thing to do. But there's no guarantee that this will remain forever. Israel's government has moved from the political left to right and now steering to center, but the dynamic range was always very small. One Israeli government can be a right wing one with some dominant extremist beliefs, which is possible for one such to remain in power even if briefly. In which case this assumption of equal terms will be thrown out the window. The Palestinian leadership is playing a dangerous game of gambling with the interests of Israel.
Right now, due to this war, some factions of Arab Israelis are rioting and one city (Lod) has called a state of emergency and brought in military forces.
This provides fuel to an already unstable political situation where extremists are abusing the legal mess to get in.
The Israeli center was making baby steps for years to overthrow the religious right coalition, but this war reverses a lot of progress.

We have seen reports of Israeli far right and extreme Ultra Orthodox Jewish groups being involved in the street rioting and it's been suggested that they may have initiated it. According to independent reports these groups were broadcasting their intent prior to Jerusalem Day. If that is indeed the case, then maybe it's about time that those groups are restrained and held accountable for their actions. I know that this will be politically unacceptable but a line does have to be drawn.

Indeed, violence erupted because of religious clashes. It was a convergence of the Islamic Ramadan and the Jewish-secular Jerusalem Day, to which religious folk give more weight.
Enflaming factors are a series of settler provocations and one Palestinian deadly terror attack plus one foiled mega attack, and above those stood the issue of Sheikh Jarrah.
Contrary to popular belief, Sheikh Jarrah is a civil dispute, not a government one.
Various Israeli and Palestinian groups are claiming rights to certain real estate on the basis of ottoman laws and deeds of ownership. Since Israel inherited both Ottoman laws and legal documents (and British) to protect local populations from unjust legal actions, every land dispute is a legal mess. Every party tries to grasp at legal straws to win, because documentation barely exists. It usually exists privately, validated by legal experts, but not every owner makes the decision to keep them, or even properly preserve them.
I'm not keen on the details, but if one party wins the legal battle, the government becomes responsible to evict the losing party. There are of course some legal measures taken to protect people from such abuses - for example those in Sheikh Jarrah were given the option to just keep paying rent, but after 12 years they stopped, and then the state decided to evict them. And yeah, this issue began in 2009.

Anyway, this all created a very tense feeling even before the Temple Mount clashes began.
The Israeli police responded very quickly, and found and stopped several busloads of orthodox Jews on their way to Jerusalem, making headlines. But you can't really do this in an organized way in the Palestinian side, so one of the bloodthirsty groups is under-staffed, creating a rather one sided clash.

When it's orthodox Jews vs police, it's usually a water cannon, some beatings, some arrests, and that's it. But when it's Palestinians vs police, the "vibe" is far more confrontational, and so violence escalates until the police starts shooting tear gas, and in extreme cases even rubber bullets.
This contributed to the continuation of violence.

All factors together have created a very fertile political ground for Hamas to start firing rockets.
It is my personal belief that Hamas doesn't care the slightest about the Palestinians, so its attacks have not actually resulted from frustration.

I also note that Ultra Orthodox adherents are exempt from service in the IDF and to me that is just patently wrong. It's a requirement of citizenship that you serve your country as well. They expect to be protected from the heathens but won't lift a finger to protect themselves, yet they are happy to incite the troubles. If that's the case tax them twice the amount non Ultra Orthodox are taxed - make them pay for the privilege.

I am an atheist and believe in a separation of state and religion. Therefore I share your opinion that beliefs should not make one exempt from military service, unless it's a philosophical thing (e.g a pacifist). Adding to your point above, there is no political boundary to having the police clash with the ultra orthodox. It happens very often. And not only with them but also various factions of settlers, religious nationalists, and more.
The religious parties don't make too much of a fuss about it.

They do have enough control over the government to give them a free pass in some things, which is why I always vote against anyone who might sit with them. But when it comes to actual security concerns they don't get any free pass.

It is my belief that you will have to clean house before you can advance towards some sort of arrangement with the Palestinians. There are radicals and extremists on both sides and all that you have achieved in the last 20 years is made the Palestinians hate you even more and given Hamas an entry and a strong foothold.

Hamas rose to power because the PA was considered far too corrupt (ironic, huh?), and also because they were okay with waging a civil war against a rival militia (Fatah) to cement their status.
It has nothing to do with Israeli politics, IMO.
It's kind of like North Korea - the people know the government is shit, but they don't have any means to resist. They can only abide, or attempt an escape which results in multi-generational executions.

What you said is also true in reverse. The conflict with Palestinians fuels hatred which in turn gives rise to extremist factions in Israel. And because in Israel there are actually elections, it matters.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I will ask you this. What if a group of Palestinians began building illegal settlements on Jewish land, would the Israeli reaction be? I know myself what it would be; quick and violent.

That's not really true. Per the Oslo Accords, there is a clear separation between areas A, B, and C. In area C, under full Israeli control, there are roughly 300,000 Palestinians. The vast majority are living in settlements deemed illegal by the government. The reaction is not swift or violent at all, and if evicted people are compliant, they get compensation in the form of alternative housing.
Usually Israel does not interfere with illegal construction unless it comes in conflict with grand state projects, or is used for economical gain (building illegally is a form of tax evasion, because you evade the rather large property tax).

In the eyes of the government, anyone can build in area C as long as there's a permit, but if the government decides to withdraw, it would be considered a risk the locals have taken into account. But the government will still pay eviction compensation.

It may seem like Israel is targeting Palestinians with property challenges, but that's not quite related to them being Palestinian.
Israel has a very high density of lawyers. 3 times the OECD average. It contributes greatly to the sense of rule of law, as the government promotes bureaucracy to provide labor (a very questionable and short sighted decision IMO).
Israelis are subject to inspections regarding property during any event, and the government makes sure none builds illegally to raise property value without paying additional tax. As I said, it's a form of tax evasion.
Palestinians rarely care about that. But the bigger problem is they're usually not represented by a municipality. Let alone a competent one.

Municipalities have the exclusive responsibility of adhering to state or regional plans, and submitting their own municipal development plans. If no such plans exist, the government has the right to do as it pleases with the territory.

Israeli Arab cities also suffer from this because of a lack of law enforcement and inspection, leading to high rates of lawsuits against them (not a formal statistic, but testimonies from locals). Illegal construction is rampant, but the media doesn't really react to those cases. It certainly doesn't react to cases of Israeli Jews. That's why you get a skewed view of things.

Palestinians who live in mixed cities are protected because these usually have solid development plans, and the municipality protects them this way.
However I know you will be tempted to mention Sheikh Jarrah, so that I say it is a civil dispute regarding ownership rights, not illegal construction or squatting.

 

[Feanor]

That was true if Israel and Palestine are equals. But Israel is the stronger state, and it has legal legitimacy to do whatever it pleases to advance its own interests. If the Palestinians want to get something, they need to try to convince Israel to negotiate.
You don't try to negotiate equal terms from a position of weakness.

This is a deeply problematic position to take. You can't simultaneously argue about legality and legitimacy while extolling a might makes right approach. Israel either has legal legitimacy or might but not both. When you try to claim both, you typically end up getting the benefits of neither which (surprise surprise) is not that far off from the position Israel is in. It can win militarily (at the cost of great loss of life and terrible human suffering) but this is legally unacceptable. It has good legal points, but ruins them by doing whatever it pleases to advance its own interests by force. Israel has the exact same amount of international legal authority as any other state on earth (and quite a bit less then 5 of them, Security Council veto, etc.). Israel has the right to advance its own interests but only within the bounds of the same international rule of law as everyone else, including Palestine. Denying this equality strips all legality and legitimacy from the claimant.

 

[SolarWind]

This is a deeply problematic position to take. You can't simultaneously argue about legality and legitimacy while extolling a might makes right approach. Israel either has legal legitimacy or might but not both. When you try to claim both, you typically end up getting the benefits of neither which (surprise surprise) is not that far off from the position Israel is in. It can win militarily (at the cost of great loss of life and terrible human suffering) but this is legally unacceptable. It has good legal points, but ruins them by doing whatever it pleases to advance its own interests by force. Israel has the exact same amount of international legal authority as any other state on earth (and quite a bit less then 5 of them, Security Council veto, etc.). Israel has the right to advance its own interests but only within the bounds of the same international rule of law as everyone else, including Palestine. Denying this equality strips all legality and legitimacy from the claimant.

Your reasoning assumes the UN-decided legitimacy as prime determinant of international moral and ethical standing. Whereas the general council has been biased against Israel due to a large fraction of voters being Arab and Muslim states, any actual legal action that has any forceful component has depended on the security council. This combination of reality argues against Israel placing too much importance in seeking general legitimacy standing among the general council, and more toward seeking legitimacy with all or any permanent veto-holding members of the security council. In this reality, might, such as being generally useful, being likeable, being valuable, and being militarily strong is of more or equal importance as the so-called legal legitimacy.
So in a slightly different version of reality, where the general council is not biased against Israel and in itself can act as a measure of moral and ethical standard, you would be right and legal legitimacy would have more importance, but this is not the reality we are in, unfortunately.

 

[Feanor]

Your reasoning assumes the UN-decided legitimacy as prime determinant of international moral and ethical standing. Whereas the general council has been biased against Israel due to a large fraction of voters being Arab and Muslim states, any actual legal action that has any forceful component has depended on the security council. This combination of reality argues against Israel placing too much importance in seeking general legitimacy standing among the general council, and more toward seeking legitimacy with all or any permanent veto-holding members of the security council. In this reality, might, such as being generally useful, being likeable, being valuable, and being militarily strong is of more or equal importance as the so-called legal legitimacy.
So in a slightly different version of reality, where the general council is not biased against Israel and in itself can act as a measure of moral and ethical standard, you would be right and legal legitimacy would have more importance, but this is not the reality we are in, unfortunately.

I actually brought up nothing about morality or ethics. You've made a good argument for why pragmatically speaking Israel should act the way it does (on the other hand ignoring broad legitimacy in favor a 1-2 Security Council backers to protect oneself from the consequences of legally questionable action puts one in rather bad company). But nothing to address my point. Nor am I arguing for military weakness. I'm not even (or rather did not even) argue against any particular action taken by Israel. My argument was more fundamental.

 

[OPSSG]

Post 1 of 3: R2P concept and the lack of international diplomatic support

@SolarWind, your post is interesting and I want to add a 2 part reply in a manner that is technical and with a view to split some hairs, to illustrate my concerns — so I ask for @Big_Zucchini, @Feanor, and your indulgence with my technical reply below; that lacks local knowledge.

Your reasoning assumes the UN-decided legitimacy as prime determinant of international moral and ethical standing.

1. While the general assembly resolutions may be ignored, UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions cannot be ignored and they have slowly widened the concept of the responsibility-to-protect (R2P), which is well loved by the Canadians, the French and finds support in the EU.

​

(a) Operation Serval and Operation Barkhane are a concrete manifestation of this R2P idea. The post-coup d’état interim government of Mali recognized this and wrote to both the UNSC and France requesting military intervention to halt the military offensive of the Tuareg insurgents backed by several Islamic extremist organizations. By making such a request, the interim government of Mali granted permission to the French government, and subsequently the UNSC, to deploy and counter the insurgent offensive. During Operation Serval, the UNSC deployed MINUSMA peacekeepers to assume nation stabilization responsibilities.​

​

(b) To have a meaningful discussion, let me clarify two concepts, as they relate to R2P.​

One, the UNSC is by no means a supranational institution; it should rather be likened to an exclusive club controlled by a powerful few (the P5) who are largely driven by their respective national interests, at times to the detriment of collective security — which means support by a member of the P5 protects a state from an adverse UNSC resolution (eg. China’s veto used to limit adverse resolutions for its client states like Myanmar and its same refusal to do the same for others).​

Two, the conditions upon which the authorization of Chapter VII enforcement measures under the UNSC resolution is applicable have above been described as adaptable and broadening — which in time I fully expect the Biden admin will begin to apply to both Saudi Arabia and Israel, while ignoring the violations in Syria, Iran and the various Iranian proxy groups.​

2. On 2 Apr 2021, Robert Malley gave an interview to PBS that raised eyebrows in Jerusalem, Riyadh, and in Congress. Ahead of nuclear talks in Vienna, where the Europeans were about to host indirect negotiations between Biden officials and Iranian representatives about resurrecting the JCPOA, Robert Malley, President Biden’s choice as Iran envoy expressed an eagerness to lift American sanctions on Iran and ensure “that Iran enjoys the benefits that it was supposed to enjoy under the deal,” which is understandable given the 4 years of accelerated loss of American standing to lead under Trump. Trump was great at using propaganda for his base but for most American allies it was a period best forgotten. About the Robert Malley interview, an anonymous senior Israeli official said, “If this is American policy, we are concerned.”

Whereas the general council has been biased against Israel due to a large fraction of voters being Arab and Muslim states, any actual legal action that has any forceful component has depended on the security council.

3. Since 1945, the UNSC has been able to broaden its field of activity, notably with regards to the authority given to it in Chapter VII. In creating new precedence for the use of force, the P5 are constantly redefining the conditions a situation must meet in order to be perceived as a threat to the peace — in May 2020, Jake Sullivan, writing as an adviser to Biden’s presidential campaign, co-authored his own article laying out a Middle East strategy. The goal, he explained, is for the Americans to be “less ambitious” militarily, “but more ambitious in using U.S. leverage and diplomacy to press for a de-escalation in tensions and eventually a new modus vivendi among the key regional actors.”

This combination of reality argues against Israel placing too much importance in seeking general legitimacy standing among the general council, and more toward seeking legitimacy with all or any permanent veto-holding members of the security council. In this reality, might, such as being generally useful, being likeable, being valuable, and being militarily strong is of more or equal importance as the so-called legal legitimacy.

4. Agreed but under Biden, I suspect that in time, the US State Department will also begin to apply R2P concepts against IDF actions but before that they will increase military aid but tie IDF’s hands on the use of force with bogus legal arguments, including those using R2P as a basis.

5. In Nov 2010, Katharina Remshardt wrote:

​

“The way how UNSC Resolution 1236 on East Timor is worded demonstrates the new international tolerance regarding the extended use of Chapter VII powers, as well as the fundamental transformation the definition of state sovereignty had undergone. Stating that it was “the responsibility of the government of Indonesia to maintain peace and security in East Timor”, the UNSC indirectly acknowledged that state sovereignty was not only accompanied by authority, but also and more importantly by responsibility, a point later reaffirmed by former Secretary General Kofi Annan, who coined the term “dual responsibility” of the state.​

In summary, following the shifts that have occurred in the global perception of international affairs since 1945, the UNSC has been able to broaden its field of activity, notably with regards to the authority given to it in Chapter VII. In creating new precedence for the use of force...”​

6. Do not be surprised if the Biden administration decides to choose not to exercise its veto when the French or Russian representative to the UNSC deploys language similar to UNSC Resolution 1236 against Israel, in the next 2 to 3 years. And if such similar language passes, it will be a threat to Israeli legitimacy and security in relation to their forever war against Hamas. At the EU, there is an increasing but unrealistic view that the IDF owes some responsibility to the Palestinian civilians affected by conflict, despite the fact that these civilians chose Hamas, and support acts of war against Israel.

7. While Israel may be sovereign, it is not totally immune from pressure by the EU, especially if the US State Department does not want to act in a manner that serves Israel’s interest (as it pushes its own agenda forward to achieve a new modus vivendi with Iran and its allies). Some in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee may question the US State Department but Blinken can easily hold them at bay by various means — U.S. Senators Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have condemned attacks on civilians, called for renewed efforts toward a lasting peace and are quoted as stating the following:

​

“As supporters of last year’s Abraham Accords as a way to cement Israel’s permanent place in the region and halt unilateral annexation, we call on all responsible parties to take steps to de-escalate and find ways back to negotiations.”​

8. Going forward, Israel needs to be much more careful of ‘so called’ American support (claiming to be an ally), as a trap may await.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

This is a deeply problematic position to take. You can't simultaneously argue about legality and legitimacy while extolling a might makes right approach. Israel either has legal legitimacy or might but not both.

Israel voluntarily adopted international norms and so its operations and policies are bound by them. The biggest complaints of violations came after the 2014 Operation Protective Edge and the 2018-2019 Gaza border violence. These are currently challenged in a court, but there is so far no indication Israel will be found guilty, and above that it's a court that has no jurisdiction to make such judgment.
So Israel's opponents have yet to successfully legally challenge it.
Its allies have no reason to challenge it in the first place.
And none's willing to militarily challenge it, with the exception of proxies, or terrorist groups that thrive in destruction.

Israel has the right to advance its own interests but only within the bounds of the same international rule of law as everyone else, including Palestine. Denying this equality strips all legality and legitimacy from the claimant.

Israel has plenty of room to maneuver within the legal framework. It can either make life a living hell for Palestinians, by imposing a blockade on the West Bank and removing the sea access to Gaza and maybe even its access to border crossings.

It can stop supplying to both territories the food, water, internet and cell access and electricity, as well as non essentials like construction material, medical supplies, and technical assistance in sustainment projects.
Doing so would be inhumane, which is why it's unthinkable in Israel. But it would still be perfectly legal.

Under the Oslo Accords the IDF can also deploy to every part of the West Bank and declare any area a closed military area, effectively blockading area A and shutting every city from the rest.
Again, doing so would be inhumane, therefore unthinkable, but still technically legal.

The IDF can also impose lockdowns on all Palestinian cities to search for non-PLO militants, or revert to unguided munitions, or just a 1 ton bomb for every target, to massively increase civilian casualties - technically both legal. But it does not do that, because that's not what Israeli society deems moral.

I hope this sufficiently demonstrated the dynamic range Israel has, to act within its legal framework. Of course, some of these actions would also result in great international pressure, but the dynamic range remains large even with that taken into account.

The incessant refusals to make peace are similar in many ways to a dog biting the hand that feeds him.
But that could be explained by the fact that the relations are not those of a democratic state versus another democratic state.
It's a democratic state versus two (or more) theocratic militaristic plutocracies that are widely considered to be terrorist organizations.
Neither the PA nor Hamas care about their people. They care about how to siphon even more money.
They'd rather get $5 million aid in cash form, than a $200 million industrial park.
Their own people are sick of them but can't get rid of them.

 

[STURM]

The incessant refusals to make peace are similar in many ways to a dog biting the hand that feeds him.

Sorry but it’s not a case of Israel wanting peace but peace being largely because the Palestinians don’t want it. That’s a one sided; self serving and false narrative. Everyone wants peace but at what cost? Certainly not peace which is lop sided and cones with pre conditions. Or are they supposed to be grateful that democratic and mighty Israel sees fit to offer them peace and they should just unconditionally accept what’s offered them?

As to your “biting the hand which feeds them” analogy; the Palestinians are supposed to be grateful that Israel is providing basic services to inhabitants of occupied territories (as per international law which you make mention of - what about the clear instances when it violates international law??); whilst land allocated for a future Palestinian state has been steadily shrinking due to the settlements?

One gets the impression that’s it’s Israel which has a monopoly to truth and justice. Also, it has become cliche to lay all the blame on the Palestinians but is Israel really actually committed and open to the idea of an eventual Palestinian state or is it just prolonging things as long as possible; giving the impression that it’s bear no fault; only the Palestinians do..

 

[OPSSG]

Gents, can we avoid going in endless circles?

1. Both of you are intelligent and valued participants in this forum.

2. Both of you have had a go at explaining your different geo-political perspectives, which thus far, all reading can learn from.

3. But if this circular discussion continues, the Moderating Team will soon be forced to start challenging parts that we disagree with; and that will be unpleasant — kindly allow each other some space to express a view — i.e. agree to disagree but politely, please.

4. Acknowledge the difference and move on. Thank you.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Sorry but it’s not a case of Israel wanting peace but peace being largely because the Palestinians don’t want it. That’s a one sided; self serving and false narrative. Everyone wants peace but at what cost? Certainly not peace which is lop sided and cones with pre conditions. Or are they supposed to be grateful that democratic and mighty Israel sees fit to offer them peace and they should just unconditionally accept what’s offered them?

As to your “biting the hand which feeds them” analogy; the Palestinians are supposed to be grateful that Israel is providing basic services to inhabitants of occupied territories (as per international law which you make mention of - what about the clear instances when it violates international law??); whilst land allocated for a future Palestinian state has been steadily shrinking due to the settlements?

One gets the impression that’s it’s Israel which has a monopoly to truth and justice. Also, it has become cliche to lay all the blame on the Palestinians but is Israel really actually committed and open to the idea of an eventual Palestinian state or is it just prolonging things as long as possible; giving the impression that it’s bear no fault; only the Palestinians do..

I can't say I agree with anything you've written. But I fear we've already gone too political even with our previous posts. I'll gladly continue this debate in private messages, if you'd like.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

There have been many different reports since a few days ago, of various groups of Israelis rioting against each other.
Arab Israelis have attacked Jews and burned down their businesses in Lod, going as far as burning down a synagogue, and burned down property in Haifa.
Israeli Jews have attacked Arab Israelis in Bat Yam, including businesses, cars, and causing serious injuries.
Israeli Arabs have been attacking Jews and police in Acre and Jaffa, and some police cars have burned down in the Arab village of Kfar Kasm.
Jews, including some from the Itzhar outpost (extremist sect of orthodox settlers) have come to act as vigilantes and either counteract the Arab riots, or just attack innocent Arabs as a twisted form of retaliation.

This feels a lot like a civil war between various factions of Jews and Arabs, both trying to riot and attack the others in multiple major cities.
The police are barely intervening despite government decision to send in the border police.
This comes amid already immense pressure on the police which are deemed responsible for the Meron disaster in which 45 ultra orthodox Jews have died in a stampede, a few weeks ago during one of Judaism's high holidays.

Some subject experts have assumed that a major factor in the initial rioting of Arab Israelis in Lod was a result of decades of neglect by the government and municipalities, and ignited by the recent war in Gaza.

Traveling across our small state feels incredibly unsafe, whether you're a Jew, an Arab, or anyone else.
Arab Israelis are blocking roads in protests, and traffic jams are caused by Israelis fleeing southern cities to northern relatives, to avoid rocket attacks.
Israeli Jews, even not the particularly extreme orthodox ones, are trying to lynch fellow Arab citizens.
Unless you're taking the train, you better stay home.

The past few years have been characterized by ever growing divides in society in a bid to keep the Likud government in power.
The topic of Arabs in mixed cities was already delicate, and baby steps were made to improve integration. But this is one giant step back.

Even though it's extremists attacking one another, the moderate and progressive are sure to have lower trust, if not outright hate their brethren.

In other news, the current Operation Guardian of The Walls is finally starting to take shape in the public opinion. Its predecessor, Operation Protective Edge, had objectives the public mostly disagreed with, but they were clear and known from almost day 1.
This time it's a whole lot more blurry, but behind the scenes the IDF seems to take a different, perhaps more efficient and agreeable approach.

If statistics of airstrikes, footage of said strikes, and statistics of rocket attacks and casualties have dominated a few years ago, now those are barely updated or given, and we hear mostly of strikes against Hamas's highest value targets - very high ranking figures, expensive military infrastructure, strategic infrastructure, and most importantly government infrastructure (e.g banks).
The fighting is also no longer steady as was the last operation - instead it appears to come in waves from both sides.
Interesting to say the least. It's impossible to tell what the end results may be when the situation is so dynamic.
However, the IDF has the same publicly available grand objectives, and they don't include a change to the status quo in Gaza.

 

[OPSSG]

Post 2 of 3: R2P concept and the lack of international diplomatic support

9. Concerned with the new round of intensifying clashes, which have taken a heavy toll, Jean-Yves Le Drian said on 13 May 2021 (Wed) that France was fully mobilized with Germany in particular along with Egypt and Jordan to help reduce tensions. The four countries will push Israel and Palestine to resume dialogue with the objective of a “just and lasting resolution of the conflict” within the framework of international law and UN Security Council resolutions, he announced.

10. It is interesting to see how limited in scope the diplomatic support is for Israel because of Netanyahu’s policies, despite the fact that the country has been attacked by 1,750 Hamas rockets — which may in part explain why the IDF is not keen on releasing statistics of its air-strikes. To appear balanced, the EU and UK have released the following statements:

​

(i) On 10 May 2021 (Mon), Peter Stano as the EU lead Spokesperson, releases a statement on the latest escalation:​

​

“...The firing of rockets from Gaza against civilian populations in Israel is totally unacceptable and feeds escalatory dynamics.​

​

All leaders have a responsibility to act against extremists. The status quo of the holy sites must be fully respected.​

​

We reiterate our call on all sides to engage in de-escalatory efforts. Further civilian casualties must be prevented as a priority.”​

​

(ii) UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab issued statement at 7pm on 10 May 2021 (Mon), saying:​

​

“The UK condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and locations within Israel. The ongoing violence in Jerusalem and Gaza must stop. We need an immediate de-escalation on all sides, and end to targeting of civilian populations.”​

11. French President Emmanuel Macron puts tweets out in near identical messages in English, Hebrew and Arabic calling for an immediate halt to the fighting between Israel and the Gaza-ruling Hamas terror group. Also on 13 May 2021 (Wed), President Biden said there has been no "significant overreaction" by Israel in the escalating conflict with Hamas in Gaza. Biden said:

​

“The question is how we get to a point, how they get to a point where there is a significant reduction in the attacks, particularly the rocket attacks that are indiscriminately fired into population centers.”​

12. Despite Turkish press attempts to malign the appropriate diplomatic responses of the Germans, in common with Washington’s position, Berlin has repeatedly condemned Hamas "in the strongest possible terms” for launching rocket attacks on Israel. The German Foreign Ministry deputy spokesman Christofer Burger also responded, as follows:

​

“I do not think this is the right occasion for a fundamental discussion of international law. In international law, the right of self-defense applies to a state that is the victim of an armed attack,” and that Israel does have “the right to defend itself against the ongoing rocket attacks as part of its self-defense.”​

13. After international media outlets reported overnight that Israeli troops were operating in Gaza after an ambiguous IDF statement said Israeli air and ground forces were attacking in the Strip, the military is asserting this was due to a misunderstanding. In the latest IDF clarification: There are currently no IDF ground troops inside the Gaza strip; with IDF air and ground forces carrying out strikes on targets in the Gaza strip. Channel 12 news is claiming that the misunderstanding on IDF ground forces in Gaza was not in fact a mistake, but a ruse meant to draw Hamas fighters into underground tunnels built by the Gaza-ruling terror group, which the IDF then targeted in a massive bombardment, over a 40 minute period (see point 15 below).

14. Watching this, I continue to be horrified at civilian deaths at both sides and hope that in due time a cease fire will be arrived at. In addition, I note 2 updates, as follows:

• On 13 May 2021, 21:47 hours - IDF related the following info - A short while ago, three rockets were fired from Lebanon into the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of the Galilee. According to protocol no sirens were sounded.
• On 13 May 2021, 19:47 hours - IDF related the following info: At this time, approximately 1,750 rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip towards Israeli territory, of which approximately 300 failed launches fell in the Gaza Strip.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1392946133383647234

Not sure if I should believe IDF’s claims of 350 Hamas rockets hitting Gaza itself. The above is a video of a Hamas rocket aimed at Israel that misfires and falls back into Gaza; therefore it is reasonable to expect that a certain percentage of Hamas misfires, which gives rise to documented friendly fire incidents by Hamas within Gaza.​

 

[OPSSG]

Post 3 of 3: R2P concept and the lack of international diplomatic support

15. According to the IDF, on 14 May 2021 in an morning attack that lasted nearly 40 minutes, some 160 aircraft fired 450 missiles and bombs on 150 targets in northern Gaza, particularly around the city of Beit Lahiya. For years, the IDF’s Southern Command has been mapping out what it dubbed “the metro”: a network of elaborate defensive tunnels designed to enable Hamas to move weapons around, and target maneuvering IDF ground units as they approach. The military said it was still working to determine the extent of the damage caused to the underground infrastructure. The death toll in Gaza since fighting began rose to 119 dead, with 600 wounded. Israel says most of the casualties are members of terror groups or, in some cases, victims of errant rocket fire by Hamas.

16. A closer analysis of the group's rocket arsenal was carried out by Fabian Hinz on Twitter. He listed 15 different rockets in total, with at least five being supplied to the Al Qassam Brigades by Iran and Syria. By far the bulk of the Hamas and PIJ rocket arsenals are manufactured inside Gaza. Israeli experts believe that Iranian know-how and assistance have played a significant role in building up this industry.

​

(a) The first wave of a rocket attack often uses Al-Qassam rockets, to force an initial reload of a nearby Iron Dome battery. A typical single Iron Dome battery has four launch units loaded with 20 interceptors, that means it only has 80 Tamirs ready to fire at any one time; and needs to hand-off to a second Iron Dome battery, during its reload. To saturate the defences, Hamas has been firing about 150 per volley (as more or less standard) for their rocket attacks on central Israel.​

​

(b) Just as the nearby Iron Dome battery started to reload, the second and third waves of medium ranged rockets (like the Iranian made Fajr-3s and Fajr-5s or the locally made J-80s or J-90s), before Hamas fires their more valued long range missiles like the R-160s (that are used to soak up Israeli Tamir interceptors) or ubiquitous salvo launched A-120s (with a 120km range and a large warhead) or the rarer M-302s (with a range of 180km and a large warhead) that are used in an attempt to punch through the IDF’s missile defence umbrella of 13 to 15 Iron Dome batteries to attack deep into Israel’s heartland. The A-120 can target both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and the M-302s threaten the whole coastal strip which contains the greatest density of Israel's population and critical infrastructure. This of course is made possible with Iran’s help.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1393117744128839681

​

(c) There are also reports that rockets are being fired from Gaza at very low trajectories, rather than along more typical higher-angle ballistic ones. This could be another way of at least attempting to circumvent Israeli defenses. Demonstrating tactical innovation, Hamas also released a video of the “Shehab” suicide drone, which the Gaza-ruling terror group has been launching toward Israel. Earlier, the IDF said it had intercepted at least 5 explosive-laden drones (with a 5kg explosive payload) launched in Gaza since yesterday. Today, on 14 May 2021, a 6th Hamas drone penetrated Israeli airspace from Gaza, the IDF’s Home Front Command says.​

17. In the main battlefield of Gaza, the IDF is hitting Hamas in waves of air strikes. On the home front, in cities where rockets land, Iron Dome and bomb shelters are actually protecting people. But in the media and public diplomacy, Israel is largely silent or ineffective.

​

(a) During the last major conflict between Israel and Palestinian groups in Gaza in 2014, Israel received approximately US$225 million in emergency aid from the US specifically to boost its Tamir stockpiles. That conflict lasted around seven weeks, during which the Palestinians fired at least 4,564 rocket and mortar projectiles.​

​

(b) Based on the current cycle of rocket attacks and Israeli retaliation, it seems very possible that the total number of rockets fired at Israel from Gaza in this new conflict will approach or exceed the 4,564 figure from the 2014 war, and do so in a far more compressed timeframe.​

​

(c) To make matters worse, there's no love lost between Biden and Netanyahu. Still, the U.S. is the only country with leverage on Israel, as such, it is no surprise that the US dispatched Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr to Israel to push for de-escalation. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Amr’s visit in his press conference.​

18. Given that Israel and Hamas seem determined to keep fighting, Aaron David Miller, who helped U.S. policy toward the Middle East across multiple administrations, said, "the Biden administration's capacity to bring this to an end ... is very low." IMO, it is the Egyptians that would be the ones who eventually forge a cease-fire. The question is whether it happens in 15 days or 50 days. Goldenberg, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security said, "the early returns are not promising at all. ... This is a very dangerous moment."

19. What is required is a multipronged diplomatic effort that is based on a clear division of labor — the US speaking to Israel, and America's Arab and European partners negotiating with Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) in the West Bank. Of course, there must be close cooperation, coordination and communication among and between all parties involved. When the time is right, the US and the others must also involve the recent Abraham Accord players, especially the UAE and Morocco, to determine what can be done. The four countries that normalized relations with Israel — UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco — carry weight, especially with the Israeli public, which greeted the new relationships with great satisfaction.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1393482459275309057

20. The real tragedy in the current crisis is that for the foreseeable future, I see no pathway for the Palestinians and the Israelis to end their conflict. This tragic movie keeps playing again and again. Each time it takes a predictable course in which both civilian populations suffer.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Not sure if I should believe IDF’s claims of 350 Hamas rockets hitting Gaza itself. The above is a video of a Hamas rocket aimed at Israel that misfires and falls back into Gaza; therefore it is reasonable to expect that a certain percentage of Hamas misfires, which gives rise to documented friendly fire incidents by Hamas within Gaza.

Israeli TV streams Gaza rocket footage live, so the IDF cannot lie about these statistics.
Besides, the IDF is not known to lie about such things. If anything, it's usually conservative with details.

 

[OPSSG]

Israeli TV streams Gaza rocket footage live, so the IDF cannot lie about these statistics.
Besides, the IDF is not known to lie about such things. If anything, it's usually conservative with details.

Thanks for the correction, and letting me learn from you. In that case, Hamas’ rockets have a failure rate of between 8% to 18% depending on type and batch of production. A huge ordinance reliability problem. Given that we can count a 150 per average volley fired — the mis-fire rate is between 12 to 27 rockets, per volley.

This known quality problem in their rocket munitions is literally killing significant numbers of their own people in Gaza.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The real tragedy in the current crisis is that for the foreseeable future, I see no pathway for the Palestinians and the Israelis to end their conflict. This tragic movie keeps playing again and again. Each time it takes a predictable course in which both civilian populations suffer.

Israel can force positive changes into the status quo by shaking it up, although that's more of a gamble.
The Abraham accords were a decisive diplomatic victory for Israel - Palestinian factions were permanently damaged.
By not removing Hamas, the status quo remains. By removing it, Israel will either have someone worse, in which case it's rinse and repeat, or it will have something better.
The best way to ensure a positive outcome, is to coordinate a PA return to Gaza, but that's not even debated right now.

 

[CheeZe]

Israel told the media it had ground forces in Gaza. Then it changed the story. (msn.com)

Given the IDF's current inability to clearly state where its troops are, it is a little difficult to believe anything they say at the moment. That is, if we assume the IDF made an honest mistake. If we are going on the theory that they deliberately misled journalists, then that's a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[OPSSG]

IDF Attacking the ‘metro’ — Part 1

Israel told the media it had ground forces in Gaza. Then it changed the story. (msn.com)

Given the IDF's current inability to clearly state where its troops are, it is a little difficult to believe anything they say at the moment. That is, if we assume the IDF made an honest mistake. If we are going on the theory that they deliberately misled journalists, then that's a whole other kettle of fish.

1. They had a tactical reason to mislead, as intelligence preparation of the battlefield. The IDF waited till Hamas expended over 1,750 missiles before they were willing to risk the conduct of this massive 40 minute air strike (see point 15 above).

(i) This was carefully timed just prior to their 160 aircraft strike package (from 12 fighter squadrons) — which is sure to generate collateral damage. The IDF also fired artillery rounds and smoke to give Hamas the impression ground forces were on the move, as they wanted Hamas in the tunnels that they attacked with numerous 2,000 to 5,000 pound bombs.​

​

(ii) Read up on the key words, ‘GBU-28’ (4,400 pounds), ‘GBU-31(V)3/B JDAM’ (2,000 pounds), ‘Spice 2000’ or the ‘Advanced Unitary Penetrator’ as successor to the ‘BLU-109’ as these penetrating warheads can be mated with different types of JDAMs or Spice to get an idea of how this class of weapons work.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1393088353923391489

2. See IAF’s post above. I understand that Hamas has executed a few suspected local spies, as the attacker knew the exact coordinates of the tunnel network. You can also see some limited images of the collapsed Metro tunnels on social media, that Hamas is trying to control the release of. A classic and well timed conduct of deception operations by IDF.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Big_Zucchini Thanks for those posts. They have been very informative.