Haaretz - Withdraw and win

[Englander]

Last update - 13:23 08/10/2005

By Akiva Eldar

The activists from MachsomWatch could not believe their ears. Representatives of the women's organization that monitors Israel Defense Forces checkpoints in the West Bank) were attending a conference last Monday at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem to mark their annual checkpoint report. The expression on the face of the meeting's chairman, Prof. Yossi Yona, a supporter of the Geneva Initiative, also reflected surprise. The eyes of those present darted back and forth between the silver-haired speaker and the lines of text displayed on the screen. Major General (ret.) Amiram Levine, once a commander of the elite Sayeret Matkal unit, a military man who spent most of his years fighting Palestinian terror, said that any occupation, including the Israeli occupation in the territories, necessarily entails acts of terror against the civilian population. It was not the last time that evening that Levine left his listeners with mouths agape.

>snip

In between, Levine also writes policy-security papers and is working on a book about strategic issues. In a paper submitted three years ago, he suggested a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. In a conversation with Haaretz at the end of last week, he spoke about his principles. At a cafe on the main road from Tel Aviv to his home in Caesarea, Levine said he could not recall whether he actually talked about Israeli terror in the territories. But he is ready to say that control over another people leads to corruption and that corruption ensures defeat, and that the only question is whether the defeat will come in another two years, five years, or twenty years. These are the basic assumptions upon which his plan is built. Levine cited as an example of corruption a report two days earlier in Haaretz about the confiscation of za'atar (hyssop) plants from elderly Palestinian women at IDF checkpoints. "How did we reach this point that a company commander or squad commander obeys such a command and remains silent? Only an army of bastards does such things."

His complaints are not directed mainly at the operative echelon in the field because, in his view, as along as the occupation continues, the checkpoints, like the targeted killings and the home demolitions, are legitimate tools, despite their immeasurable damage. He focuses his criticism on the senior military brass.

"Either the senior command does not understand that over time, the checkpoint, like the other tools of occupation, defiles and corrupts us and brings us closer to defeat, or it is afraid to present this to the government as a professional-historic truth," Levine writes in his presentation. "The IDF has an obligation to present military truth that is based upon knowledge and military history, and only then to salute and execute. It's not clear whether this is being done."

Thus, for example, he expects the senior command to tell the government that the separation fence is a "terrible mistake" from every perspective. It oppresses and harasses unfortunate civilians, does not facilitate an accord, ruins the landscape and nature, and is nothing but an attempt to cover backs by ostensibly taking steps against terror.

More at;
Haaretz

[bemildred]

1. Interesting guy.

At least he understands the consequences of moral decay.
A lesson we could use here in the USA too.

The bit about collective punishment at the end lost me
though, you have to go after the perps, and if you can't
do that you have to sit on your hands, otherwise you just
make more perps. The notion that you can "teach them a
lesson" by punishing some random people is poppycock.
You instill fear, but not in the right people, and fear
leads to hate and anger, and hate and anger do not lead
to civil order.

[Englander]

2. Yes, absolutely.

There's no such thing as a benign occupation. It's good that Levine
has (partially) realised that, unfortunately he's no longer in a
position of power.

[pelsar]

3. Sit on our hands?

if the terrorists use the population as human shields, which they do...we can hardly accept that...we might as well line ourselves up against the wall and let them shoot at us.

there are no "good solutions'....but letting them use their own population as shields and us letting them do that..obviously would only encourage them to use what works....and if that works...they would us it more and more.

if the terrorist uses a human shield..you do you best not to shoot the shield..but you definitly shoot to kill.

[bemildred]

4. KIlling bystanders is not a "solution". It's a crime.

As far as the "human shields" argument, cops don't get
away with shooting a bunch of civilians while chasing
criminals, they have a duty to protect "innocent life".
The same rules apply here.

[pelsar]

5. wrong scenario....

your assuming that the criminal/terrorist is running away....what happens when hes NOT running away and shooting AT you and the people around you on Automatic

are you then going to "sit on your hands"?......try it.....i doubt very much the people around you will appreciate you sitting on your hands while they getting attacked

so who is now the criminal?...

the one who refuses to stop the attacker for fear of hitting the wrong person......that too is a criminal act

[bemildred]

7. I'm not assuming anything. nt

[eyl]

6. Actually, they don't necessarily

The sticking point is that terrorism is, legally, in an ambogous place between crime and warfare - and it suits both terrorists and states not to define it as one or the other.

If it's crime - then the rules cops used are in order. If, OTOH, it's warfare - than the laws of war apply, and under those laws it's permissable to attack an enemy even if you know innocent bystanders will be hurt or killed in doing so.

[bemildred]

8. Terrorism is undefined because it is a propaganda term, an old one.

I'm not here to defend Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians,
but I don't see how you can oppose that while claiming that
abuse of Palestinian civilians is justified, or that Palestinian
civilians are somehow not entitled to the same human rights as
anyone else.

[pelsar]

9. then you dont want to understand..

its not a matter of what they are entitled to...its a matter of reality:

using people as human shields..means those shields are going to get killed and wounded....its that simple.

"sitting on ones hands" while getting shot at is simply suicide.

so if you and everyone around you is being shot at by someone in a crowd.....your going to simply hide and not attempt to shoot him?...even as people around you are being shot and killed?

beause that sure sounds iike what your saying (and that use to be a real world scenario out here...)

or what would you do? (shooters is about 150 fts away....)

[bemildred]

11. Yeah, screw human rights, this is "reality".

:puke:

No, I don't want to "understand" that.

[eyl]

15. That's your prerogative

OTOH, it's not your job to deal with such a situation, so you have the luxery of "not understanding".

[bemildred]

16. It certainly is. Nice of you to concede that. nt

[pelsar]

30. then dont understand....

but offering an opinion without wanting to understand also doesnt make sense....it means you dont want to know what actually motivates the people invovled to do what they do....

and that is because..........

[bemildred]

32. You are saying they don't have any human rights.

Expediency take precedence over their human rights.
"The end justifies the means".

I understand that perfectly well, but I don't have to
agree to it. I have plenty of sympathy with the individual
Israeli soldier stuck in this mess, especially the ones
that don't want to be there, but it does not follow that
I have to agree that the policy that puts them there is
a good one, or inevitable, or the only possible course.

[eyl]

10. I'm not saying they're "justified"

I'm saying they're inevitable. Once it crosses a certain point, it is impossible to combat terrorism using only police tactics - and that necessarily involves some degree of collective punishment (since one of the terrorist's primary tools is that he hides inside - and fights from within - the civilian population).

[bemildred]

12. And I'm saying you are wrong.

It is impossible to combat terrorists except with police tactics.
One of the goals of the terrorist is to provoke disproportionate
violent responses and to induce a breakdown in public order, thereby
undercutting the legitimacy of the governing power. What you
suggest is playing his game. Situations where conventional military
forces have successfully suppressed "terrorists" are as rare as hen's
teeth. Far more common are situations where the "war" has ground on
for DECADES, denying the governing power stability and legitimacy and
leading to slow decay.

[pelsar]

13. so what would you do?

go back up and how would you react to the reality of terrorism..if you were actually involved?

getting shot at from within a crowd....with people all around you, and you have a weapon...what "police tactics"...would be appropriate?

this is how it really is.....

[bemildred]

17. Make friends with "the crowd".

Good cops don't piss off the civilian population.
Otherwise their job becomes hopeless.

[pelsar]

21. friends with the crowd..

You owe me a cup of coffee... and almost a keyboard

as i almost spit it all out when i read your reply....."make friends with at fanatic spraying the crowd with bullets"......


your getting shot by an AK-47 on automatic (not very accurate)......now what (you seem to be avoiding the problem here....

are you going to put down your weapon, forget about those around you who are now bleeding and dying and go shake hands with the fanatics shooting?


i know those real world scenarios should do ruin a good theory dont they....

[bemildred]

22. Maybe you should not be there?

I mean why are you there? Do you want to be there?
What good is being done for anyone?

[pelsar]

27. thats avoiding the problem....

"you are there' because a mob decided to block the road and started throwing stones at those driving by....you were called in to push them back so that the drivers wont be in danger.....

now your being shot at...as are passerbys......what are you going to do ....shoot back at the shooters?....you know have dead and wounded around you.....and they're still shooting....

what crowd pleasing tactic shall you use that will make the stone throwers stop and the shooter stop?

(i'll put my coffee down this time....)

[bemildred]

28. No, why are you enforcing order in Gaza?

Individual soldiers have a right to defend themselves.
I'm asking why are they there in the first place?
Let the Gazans enforce their own civil order.
I notice this policy has recently come in favor.

[eyl]

24. Have you ever tried to make friends under fire?

And I mean that in the literal sense...

[bemildred]

25. You won't beat the terrorists without the cooperation of the crowd.

This is a standard point fighting small-scale/guerilla wars.

[eyl]

14. Police tactics are only possible

when the government has control of the territory; or IOW when the territory in question is not hostile. That is, the force the terrorists can use is small compared to that the police can bring to bear. Also, the population in the vicinity can be mostly counted on to remain uninvolved in the encounter. The same is true for crime, BTW; to put it another way, the police can use limited force because it only faces limited force. Because of that, terrorism in, say, the US or the UK is a problem which can be primarily handled by the law-enforcement agencies (with the assistance of those countries' intelligence agencies in the case that terrorism has foreign links).

However, once the government does not have full control of the territory, it's a whole different ball game. Sending a police force into Gaza, for example, is an invitation to have them massacred - the terrorists have the advantage in firepower, numbers, local support (including additional gunmen to assist them in the fighting, and people to assist them in escaping), and will have no hesitation in attacking with lethal intent. In that situation, you need a force equipped to function in an hostile environment - namely, a military force.

It's true that purely military measures cannot defeat terrorism*, unless the government is willing to be far more ruthless than Israel - despite accusations to the contrary - is willing to be (Black September comes to mind). However, military tactics are quite capable of containing terrorism, particularly in a situation where the source is mostly geographically confined.

For example, note the rate of suicide attacks before and after Operation Defensive Shield in March 2002. The rate of successful attacks went way down as a result (of ODS and the intensified miltary activity which followed it), and you'll note that there have been very few successful attacks in Israel over the last year - in large part because of military action (I'm including the barrier under this catagory, since it obviously doesn't fall in the "police" category). The police could not have gone into Jenin - which was the largest source of suicide bombers at the time - without getting slaughtered..

*I should note that I'm unaware of any case where purely police tactics succeeded in defeating large-scale terrorism either.

[bemildred]

18. Maybe the police force should not go into Gaza then?

I notice they have been withdrawn now.
A tactical retreat, but still an admission that what was being
done accomplished little.

[eyl]

19. And in return

we got 40 rockets the first day. If that continues, the military will move back in.

It's all very well to say that military force shouldn't be used against terrorism. However, your alternative seems to be for Israel to stand quiet, let its people be killed, and hope for the best.

[bemildred]

20. In return you were relieved of a stupid, expensive occupation. nt

[eyl]

23. maybe, but irrelevent

to the point.

Once again - it is impossible to combat terrorism using only police tactics, unless it's on small scale. If terrorism from Gaza continues, the response will - necessarily - to be military, not law enforcement.

[bemildred]

26. You think being relieved of a stupid, expensive occupation is irrelevant?

[eyl]

29. To the question of

whether terrorism can be fought solely with police tactics? Yes, it is irrelevent.

[bemildred]

31. But to the question of what you got by leaving Gaza

it is quite relevant.

[eyl]

33. Which wasn't

what we were discussing

[bemildred]

34. Post #18:

Maybe the police force should not go into Gaza then?

I notice they have been withdrawn now.
A tactical retreat, but still an admission that what was being
done accomplished little.

Post #19:

And in return

we got 40 rockets the first day. If that continues, the military will move back in.

It's all very well to say that military force shouldn't be used against terrorism. However, your alternative seems to be for Israel to stand quiet, let its people be killed, and hope for the best.

It seemed to me that the subject of what you got for the withdrawal
came up there, and my point was that it was a good thing in itself,
like leaving Southern Lebanon was a good idea in itself. When you are
hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, the first thing to do is
put the hammer down.

It is not correct, BTW, that your options are restricted to occupying
Gaza of doing nothing. There continues to be "friction" on the
Northern border, but nobody (as far as I know) is considering
re-occupation up there.

[eyl]

35. True, that's where

the thread started drifting; I'm trying to get it back on track. Also, in my reply you quoted I should have noted that it was the military that was withdrawn, not the police. In fact, it goes against your point - post withdrawal, the IDF can funtion in Gaza almost as effectively as it did before, but the police can't.

Lastly, I never claimed that the only options were occupation or nothing. What I said that by demanding only police be used, you were effectively requiring Israel to do nothing, since police are can't deal with that situation.

[bemildred]

36. It's been a pleasure talking to you.

It would be easy enough to continue, but I'm getting tired of it.

What I'm suggesting is that neither the police nor the military be
used in situations where they are not appropriate, but I would guess
we disagree about where that would be, and I doubt we will resolve
the question.

It is true that sometimes that would require doing nothing, but not
all the time, just when "doing something" is likely to make the
situation worse, as I see it. In military matters one does not
always counterattack when attacked. This is no different.

The argument seems clear enough for those who might be interested.

Again, thanks for the talk.