Israeli Leaders To Debate "Final" Gaza Push

[Purveyor]

Source: Reuters

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM, Jan 7 (Reuters) - Israeli leaders will debate on Wednesday whether to order their armed forces to storm into the Gaza Strip's urban centres, the planned culmination of an 11-day-old offensive, political sources said.
--CLIP--
Military analysts believe Israeli forces would be severely challenged by combat in Gaza's congested casbahs and alleyways, where much of their air support would be irrelevant and where Palestinian gunmen would be able to mount hit-and-run ambushes.

Conquering Gaza could amount to a reoccupation of a territory the Jewish state captured from Egypt in a 1967 war and quit in 2005. Israeli leaders have said they do not want to reoccupy Gaza or, for now, to topple the Islamist Hamas group.
in possible truce talks led by Egypt.
--CLIP--
"The assumption was that our forces could draw out the enemy into open areas where they could be eliminated, but they didn't come out in the number we expected," the source said. "Taking the fight into the populated areas would be much tougher."

Read more: http://mobile.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L6222934.htm

[StudsT]

1. The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[Ghost Dog]

14. Yes indeed.

5th rec. added there.

[bemildred]

2. Is this some kind of stupid joke?

"The assumption was that our forces could draw out the enemy into open areas where they could be eliminated, but they didn't come out in the number we expected,"

[tekisui]

4. I doubt any of Israel's military planners expected Hamas to

react that way. It would have been foolish, and they are war professionals. That sounds like an excuse or a cover to me.

[bemildred]

5. Yes. nt

[bemildred]

12. I mean, Fuck I hope so.

What kind of military "planner" expects the enemy to line up in an open area where they can be conveniently eliminated?

[bunnies]

16. The same kind that was suprised by...

the insurgency in Iraq. Just sayin.

[tekisui]

3. Israel has done all that it can without major political risk.

So far using big fire power and airstrikes, they have advance with military success and popular support. Now, they are stuck. Retreat in what would appear as incomplete, hold and slowly bleed away popular support, or risk the urban warfare that is, for all practical purposes, a losing endeavor.

[Ghost Dog]

15. Echoes somewhat this analysis in Haaretz:

...

The key question is how much time the army has left. Some General Staff members hoped the government would call off the ground incursion if an appropriate exit plan was developed in time. That turned out to be a fruitless expectation. It appears French President Nicolas Sarkozy's arrival will restart diplomacy.

At this point, Egypt is expected to play an important role, despite the tensions between Cairo and Hamas. Egypt wants to see Hamas bleed before it gets fully into the role of mediator. Cairo is now waiting for a formal request by the Arab League before it intervenes. On the other hand, Egypt observes what its population wants, and Egyptians - like people across the Arab world - are rooting for Hamas and holding protests against Israel.

It would be a mistake to see the war in Gaza as a rerun of the Second Lebanon War. The Israeli position looks better now because the IDF is better trained and more prepared, the risk Hamas poses to the home front is lower than that posed by Hezbollah, and perhaps most important, Hamas has something to lose. The most important goal from Hamas' perspective is maintaining its hold on Gaza, and the Israeli operation poses a serious risk to that. All the same, it's not safe to assume that Hamas will collapse under Israeli military pressure. Israel also faces the danger of high casualties or abductions.

And so the reserve call-up portends bad news. Israeli society has not changed its approach to soldiers' deaths after the Lebanon failure. Wars in Israel are sometimes redefined as failures after the death of the first reservist. An extended stay in the Gaza dunes, which are liable to turn into a quagmire, would bring that eventuality closer.

/... http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052597.html

- Another case of going in without a clear exit plan?

[FiveGoodMen]

6. It's their final solution, huh?

[Duckhunter935]

8. No

If it was, I am quite sure they could level Gaza and the west bank many times over and kill every living thing but they have not.

[FiveGoodMen]

13. There ... might ... just be a worldwide backlash if they did

[GoesTo11]

10. Haven't I heard that somewhere before?

Oh, the irony.

[Duckhunter935]

7. To bad this UN solution did not work in 1947

1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan. The Israelis were subsequently victorious in a series of wars confirming their independence and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan.

[balantz]

9. Squashing huddled militants.

[EconomicLiberal]

11. Isreal: "Hmm... how many more innocent children can we kill?" n/t