The arguments against a ground operation against Hamas terrorism are understandable, but Israel’s campaign of precision airstrikes following intelligence gathering is not getting the job done.
Prof. Efraim Inbar, ISRAEL HAYOM
The arguments against a widescale military operation in the Gaza Strip are understandable. Hamas is deeply rooted amid the local population, and chances of rooting it out are slim. The fear of wounded and casualties and undertaking a mission that could encounter complications is also understandable, as is the priority currently being given to the strategic challenges Israel faces on its northern front.
For these and other reasons, Israel is currently using limited force against Hamas, even in light of the recent border breach. This tactic is designed to reduce its ability to cause Israel harm. Right now, the IDF’s preferred use of force is “intelligence fire” – combatting the organization by collecting precise intelligence and then executing precision strikes (mostly from the air), with the expectation being that the combination of the two will cause Hamas to change its behavior. This approach also saves Israel casualties.
But unfortunately, Israel has not secured quiet on the Gaza border, but rather longer escalations of violence and states of emergency in western Negev communities that last longer and comes with serious economic costs and the sense that the other side has won a victory. The enemy is also learning and exerting itself to prevent precise information from reaching the IDF and render Israeli strikes less effective through fortifications, spreading itself out, hiding, and using human shields. Hamas understands that Israel is disinclined to reoccupy the Gaza Strip and senses that it can continue its violent clashes with Israel without paying a heavy price for them.
But it seems that Israel has no choice but to make Hamas pay dearly from time to time, which will deter it for longer periods of time. It looks like a short-term ground operation will bring better results than Israel’s activity thus far. We need to maneuver inside enemy territory, locate them, and destroy them, or tie the hands of its members by smashing the myth of “popular resistance.” The “intelligence fire” efforts are important, but cannot serve as anything other than support for the main work, which must take place on the ground.
The IDF needs to be prepared to carry out a quick, broad move. First, it is important to take territory that serves as a base for terrorist organizations to eradicate their freedom of action. Rocket fire on Israeli citizens will slow down only when Israeli forces are in control of the area, wipe out the enemy forces, and prevent rockets from being fired.
Second, maneuverability is a key element in securing deterrence. The enemy can withstand heavy damage from airstrikes, but they do not put its continued rule in danger. On the other hand, the occupation of a significant swathe of territory is a much more serious challenge. To bolster deterrence, it is vital to demonstrate the ability to maneuver and secure a decisive victory, which would also smash the enemy’s belief that Israeli society is weak and afraid of losses. A high level of combat engagement comes at a cost, but a relatively short battle time could result in fewer casualties both on the front and the homefront.
Finally, ground maneuvers are key to defeating a conventional military, and that is a threat that could come to pass on Israel’s other fronts. Developing the army’s ground capabilities requires time, whereas ignoring it is a dangerous gamble.
There is also a moral aspect to the choice of a ground operation in Gaza – we cannot accept a situation in which civilians form a protective ring around the IDF.
Major operations, to take place every so often, will secure temporary deterrence that will allow long-term cease-fires and give the residents of the western Negev quiet. The Israeli public must realize that the Gaza situation cannot be solved in the blink of an eye. It can only be addressed though a long-term military struggle in which victory will come in stages. Israel’s ability to wage a war of attrition in Gaza and retain a variety of options for action is testimony to its power.
@ Bear Klein: Very True, Bear. Perhaps Israel can give them loans or something. But I think it should be done under the table or even denied publicly, so that it won’t be too easy for Israel’s enemies in the International Criminal Court and elsewhere to pin an “ethnic cleansing” bum rap on Israel and its politicians and soldiers as individuals.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:If someone does agree to take Gazans they will not admit it publicly.
There needs to be an incentive to take them. Many of the doctors have left and found homes. Hamas has now stopped doctors from leaving.
@ Bear Klein: Roam and Bear, see also my fuller quotations from JP and A7 in my comment under Mordecai Kedar’s column
– on this website.
@ roamnrab:
@ roamnrab:Roam and Bear, please see my comment on articles in the Jerusalem Post and Arutz Sheva, quoting “an official on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plane,” that Israel is attempting to do just that! The “official told journalists that Israel is offering to pay for the flights of Gazans wishing to emigrate to another country, and is actively seaching for countries will to accept them.
So far, no country has agreed to take them–which shows how little the Palestinians are liked or tested in any country in the world, despite public support for their “cause” and willingness to pay huge ‘donations” to the Palestinian regimes. Essentially this is protection money aimed at persuading the Palestinians to stay where they are.
Please read this article in today’s Arutz Sheva about Benny Gantz’s oppoisiiton to a strong Israeli military response to Hamas terroism when he was chief of staff. Also, read his response to the Likud ministers who disclosed this fact. He did not deny that he had opposed a decisive military response. Instead, he accused the Likud ministers of leaking state secrets!
(i.e., his own behavior and advice). He vowed he would not permit such leaks when he becomes Prime Minister, but instead will have them prosecuted.
This is in line with way in which we only learn about Gantz’s intentions from what he does not say, not from what he says. Such a sly, secretive , evasive man will be a serious threat to Israel’s security if he becomes Prime Minister. Bibi’s security-military record is mediocre. But Gantz’s will be much worse.
@ roamnrab:
Yes taking over Gaza is the only solution in the end. The longer Israel waits the more likely the cost in lives will be higher.
Bear Klein Said:
EXACTLY!
That’s why THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION IS TO
GO IN- AND STAY IN!
I.O.Ws. “REOCCUPY.’
Then, promote a robust program of VOLUNTARY (financially induced) EMIGRATION.
There’s NO OTHER CHOICE, Period.
As long as this dictum remains true- Israel/Bibi & Co.’s reluctance to CLEANSE THE ENCLAVE of ALL Terrorists and all of their infrastructure. And remain SCARED OF RE-OCCUPYING-
This Game of Chicken will continue- AND HAMAS, IJH & all the other Iranian-Quateri backed organizations WILL CONTINUE TO GROW THE BREADTH AND LETHALITY OF THEIR ARSENAL!
Jordan is Palestine, Turkey is Gaza.
@ David melech:Israel needs to destroy the Hamas & Islamic Jihad leaders.
They have been keeping doctors from leaving Gaza because so many have left. Every time Egypt opens up Rafah for the Gazans, many of them leave and most do not come back. They have been going to Turkey among other places, even illegally. They also try and make their way to Europe or the Gulf States.
@ Bear Klein:
Do you think in all honesty the terror leaders will let their first line of defence depart? They would sooner shoot them themselves to send the message ‘you belong to us.’
How many english lives lost at Dresden, learn from the past, firebomb Gaza, don’t be selective.
If you want select an area a safe area that the mozzies can gather that won’t be bombed that they can be by u n shipped out from.
Step in the right direction. Find Gazans homes. Also need to destroy Terrorists.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/267622
Air Strikes do Not work when you actually just try to limit damage.
You can do much damage from the air.
Ground Ops would make sense when you are trying to recapture Gaza or trying to capture the terrorist leadership.
The article’s strategy is half-baked!
Destroy the terrorist infrastructure and kill as many of the terrorists you can find.
Ground ops designed to go in and pull out would have the negative of casualties but in the end leaving very much the status quo.