Two Palestinian States?

[Sirotnikov]

That's to say, without outside support for Fatah, I can't see why there should've been a unity government at all.

Oh because Fatah was certainly well intended about giving up rule, and we drove them to resist

Huh? We saw exactly the opposite situation. You're forgetting that a primary trigger for the conflict was that Dahlan refused to fold the PA security forces (a force that nearly everyone concerned has been arming, and we in particular have been pushing to pull off a "hard coup") into the command of a politically neutral Interior Minister.

Who is the neutral interior minister?

Hamas has set up their own security force, outside of MoI jurisdiction, that set up facts on the ground.

Both sides were preparing for war. Hamas was ultimately better, which is why Dahlan asked for US and Israeli assistance in the first place.

It is not like Hamas and Fatah were all about peace and love and flowers, and then suddenly evil Israel and US came and tried to hurt their relationship.

[Az]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Internal cohesion is nonsense.

The semi-messianic settler movement dislikes the centrist non-religious peaceniks, and the peaceniks dislike the messianic movement.

The supposed "cohesion" between both sides is a stupid display of a non-existant status quo - non existant, because neither side is content with it (settlers want "greater israel", lefties want to rid of the territories), and because it is not kept (settlers try to expand their lands on the ground, the lefties try to change the national / international political mood).

I figure that every year we let the messianic movement continue to exist, we increase its power and lose control of a growing part of Israeli society.

Essentially - we're creating our own fundamentalist movement Obviously it is incomparable in scale and function to Hamas - but it is similar in essence. We already had a Jewish Undregroud. It could rise again.


If anything, I think that the Gaza pullout strengthened the Israeli democracy by finally proving, after years of inaction, that the law of the state is higher than the law of the religious groups.


I think that major blocks should stay in Israel's control indefinitely, but the silly outposts are a time waste. Not to mention that the IDF is transforming from being an army to a militia.

Instead of relying on deterrence and an active and decisive offense, the IDF has began relying on a very poorly coordinated perimeter defense and very lazy half-assed offensive "signals".

Defense against low intensity combat is a b*tch as it is, and requires very high discipline and drills. The same stuff that is the largest weakness in the IDF.

It's been quite proven that this "deterrence" that is supposed to be achieved by receiving the legitimacy to strike "hard blows" after "withdrawing" is much more a question of political will and geopolitics than where we are deployed - in settlements or at the perimeter. Plus, Your analysis of the Israeli society is missing, well, the entire mainstream of Israeli society. They're in no mood for withdrawing, and rightly so.

What's turning the Israeli army from an army to a militia isn't "the occupation". It's individualism, prosperity, and economic gaps of the Israeli civil society, which bring recruits who are less disciplined individuals. With the army actually getting softer on recruits all the time in terms of discipline the clear result is less disciplined soldiers.

Ein Efes. GIGO.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Who is the neutral interior minister?

hani Kawassemeh, who didnt want PA forces used to stop terror attacks, apparently.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177251162171&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az

It's been quite proven that this "deterrence" that is supposed to be achieved by receiving the legitimacy to strike "hard blows" after "withdrawing" is much more a question of political will and geopolitics than where we are deployed - in settlements or at the perimeter. Plus, Your analysis of the Israeli society is missing, well, the entire mainstream of Israeli society. They're in no mood for withdrawing, and rightly so.

Where Israel is deployed still impacts the geopolitics, at least over here.

I doubt there will be big unilateral withdrawls. A few big settlements wont have much more impact than all the outposts, and ALL the big settlements (other than the keepers) is what you save for the final deal.

Anyway this is all jumping the gun. First Abbas needs to finish thenew cabinet (Fayyed looks like a good start), and Kadima needs a new leader. And the half billion or so will likely go to Abbas. then we see what we see.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Oh because Fatah was certainly well intended about giving up rule, and we drove them to resist

They gave up the legislative assembly and the premiership without a fight. Seems doubtful to me they'd been ready to fight for a few cabinet posts, and what other reason did Hamas have to let them in if Fatah had no external backing?

[Az]

Where Israel is deployed still impacts the geopolitics, at least over here.

no. not really. If Israel was needed for something else, we could gas Palestinians, and if Israel had to be pressured we'd be criticized for doing anything one could possibly criticize us, or even not so.

Sometimes, the wind blows favorably, sometimes not, and sometimes, it's just weird. For example, the american position vis a vis Syria is more hawkish than the Israeli one, because it's not about playing "BFF" with the arab world, but about some hardcore american interests ( Iraq ).

[Az]

They gave up the legislative assembly and the premiership without a fight. Seems doubtful to me they'd been ready to fight for a few cabinet posts, and what other reason did Hamas have to let them in if Fatah had no external backing?

I think he was winking.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az

Where Israel is deployed still impacts the geopolitics, at least over here.

no. not really. If Israel was needed for something else, we could gas Palestinians, and if Israel had to be pressured we'd be criticized for doing anything one could possibly criticize us, or even not so.

Sometimes, the wind blows favorably, sometimes not, and sometimes, it's just weird. For example, the american position vis a vis Syria is more hawkish than the Israeli one, because it's not about playing "BFF" with the arab world, but about some hardcore american interests ( Iraq ).

Israel is rarely ABSOLUTELY needed, and its rare that its absolutely needed to pressure Israel. "Good" Israeli behavior makes it that much easier for an admin trying to work with Israel, and that much harder for one trying to pressure Israel, and vice versa.

Ive lobbied on the hill for Israel (not professionally, as part of a community thing) and my strong sense is that when you walk into a congressmans office that stuff matters. And yes, congress has SOME influence over the realpolitik chess players in the exec branch.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

They gave up the legislative assembly and the premiership without a fight. Seems doubtful to me they'd been ready to fight for a few cabinet posts, and what other reason did Hamas have to let them in if Fatah had no external backing?

Fatah's strategy has been to let Hamas members into official positions, while undermining them from within, or creating duplicate such positions under the President's chamber, in the hands of Abbas and his loyalists (Dahlan et al).

Dahlan's force was Dahlan's idea, not anyone elses.

Hamas got wind of that, and worked to undermine this strategy. Mostly by ridding the organizations of Fatah beurocrats and chiefs in favor of Hamas beurocrats and chiefs.

And every thing that Fatah tried to create out-side of the system, Hamas did as well - such as creating an extra-judicial armed force in Gaza.

Fatah was certainly not in the mood to back down and have it in the ass. They simply .. botched their attempts to get it right.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
hani Kawassemeh, who didnt want PA forces used to stop terror attacks, apparently.

He isn't very neutral.

[Sirotnikov]

It's been quite proven that this "deterrence" that is supposed to be achieved by receiving the legitimacy to strike "hard blows" after "withdrawing" is much more a question of political will and geopolitics than where we are deployed - in settlements or at the perimeter.

Being deployed in the settlements and dealing mostly with defense issues lessens our ability to plan effective attacks, and reduces deterrence by attrition.

Detterence only exists if you have long periods of inaction.

When palestinian factions are constantly in contact with Israeli soldiers and can learn and adapt - then deterrence is non-existant.

Plus, Your analysis of the Israeli society is missing, well, the entire mainstream of Israeli society. They're in no mood for withdrawing, and rightly so.

Of course they aren't in the mood for withdrawing right now because it will be yet another "victory" for the palestinians.

I lump the mainstream israelis in the left peacenik camp. Not because of moral quandaries but because most Israelis are infact interested to forgo most of the territories for peace - and even just to separate. They're tired of palestinians and they're tired of Mitnahlim.

What's turning the Israeli army from an army to a militia isn't "the occupation". It's individualism, prosperity, and economic gaps of the Israeli civil society, which bring recruits who are less disciplined individuals. With the army actually getting softer on recruits all the time in terms of discipline the clear result is less disciplined soldiers.

Less disciplined individuals are the blame of a poor education program and a poor justice system, and not rising individualism or prosperity.

And the discipline problem in the IDF is NOT a new phenomena. the IDF always had a huge discipline problem and very poor doctorines and rules.

It is a problem on a huge scale that plagues not only the plain soldiers, but the general command itself and the higher echelons.

Israeli officers are untrained, have no respect for drills, and no interest in tactics, strategy or lessons of warfare. You can compare an Israeli officer of any rank with a comparable officer in a foreign army, to see that Israeli officers are, as a rule, far less qualified professionally.

Israeli officers are often better in their job because of their creativity, national allegiance and other values. But they are much worse professionally.

The whole branch of drill and military theory is completely disconnected from the field forces. It is highly unprofessional and covers its tracks by lots of pseudo babble. Just read the monthly "MAARACHOT" to see an example.

The planning directoriate is also delusional and trying to run completely unarmy like missions and goals, and spends most of its time analyzing various elements which are not at all army-relevant. Their language is also filled with pseudo-babble and is disconnected from any rational military environment.

Same exists everywhere.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Eli
Which wouldn't change a thing in the grand scheme of things, except, on the downside, increase strife within Israeli society at a crucial point in time,

Why would it increase strife in Israeli society to remove people from land they have no right to be occupying even under Israeli law? Legal settlements I can understand but come on.

[Sirotnikov]

Why would it increase strife in Israeli society to remove people from land they have no right to be occupying even under Israeli law? Legal settlements I can understand but come on.

Israelis fear rattling the status quo.
even imaginary ones.

this is why we haven't seen a major crackdown on settlers. this is why the state-religion (im)balance sucks the way it does.

this is why Israel hasn't seriously cracked down on terrorist masterminds in Syria and Lebanon.

Even this last was in Lebanon everyone were fearing "going too far".

[Az]

Being deployed in the settlements and dealing mostly with defense issues lessens our ability to plan effective attacks, and reduces deterrence by attrition.

You'll be dealing mostly with defense issues no matter if you're deployed in the territories or along Kav ha tefer.

Detterence only exists if you have long periods of inaction.

And currently, periods of action or inaction are governed by us deciding to conduct more or less "peilut yezuma".

When palestinian factions are constantly in contact with Israeli soldiers and can learn and adapt - then deterrence is non-existant.
[/q]

and, once again, that won't change because of any redeployment. It will only change if decide to operate differently.

Of course they aren't in the mood for withdrawing right now because it will be yet another "victory" for the palestinians.

I lump the mainstream israelis in the left peacenik camp. Not because of moral quandaries but because most Israelis are infact interested to forgo most of the territories for peace - and even just to separate. They're tired of palestinians and they're tired of Mitnahlim.

I'm not so sure about it. You can see the mainstream switching opinions pretty much all the time, whenever a new hope, or yet another disappointment from the palestinians occurs. I don't think there is a new solid paradigm that "we need to get out of J&S/WB, no matter what". It's quite fluid. Most people now are in denial about the disengagement from Gaza, for example, or have no idea whether what sharon did was the right thing. The latest is more from personal questioning, not solid polling, but still, that's the vibe I am getting.

Less disciplined individuals are the blame of a poor education program and a poor justice system, and not rising individualism or prosperity.

This is a false dichotomy. The increase in individualism, and increase of prosperity, led to the fall of the old family that put enormous amounts of extra strain on an unprepared government ( justice system, and education system )

And the discipline problem in the IDF is NOT a new phenomena. the IDF always had a huge discipline problem and very poor doctorines and rules.

not nearly as much as now. I talked to some real old timers.

It is a problem on a huge scale that plagues not only the plain soldiers, but the general command itself and the higher echelons.

again, not completely correct. WRT land forces, Colonels and generals used to get formal military education, both academic, and non-academic in nature. Now, it seems that an MBA is a legitimate choice for education if one wants to become a corps or regional command CO.

Israeli officers are untrained, have no respect for drills, and no interest in tactics, strategy or lessons of warfare. You can compare an Israeli officer of any rank with a comparable officer in a foreign army, to see that Israeli officers are, as a rule, far less qualified professionally.

Yes you can, but this wasn't always the case.

Israeli officers are often better in their job because of their creativity, national allegiance and other values. But they are much worse professionally.

I know people who wrote and still write drills, doctrines and techniques.

The whole branch of drill and military theory is completely disconnected from the field forces. It is highly unprofessional and covers its tracks by lots of pseudo babble. Just read the monthly "MAARACHOT" to see an example.

I never really GOT the Tohad division. It should concern itself first and foremost with combined arms. There is a separate deparment in the GOC.

The planning directoriate is also delusional and trying to run completely unarmy like missions and goals, and spends most of its time analyzing various elements which are not at all army-relevant. Their language is also filled with pseudo-babble and is disconnected from any rational military environment.

The work we subcontracted to the planning directorate was highly professional, academic in level, and scientifically oriented. To put it into the army perspective and realities is the job of intelligent young officers such as me and you.

[Sirotnikov]

You'll be dealing mostly with defense issues no matter if you're deployed in the territories or along Kav ha tefer.

Those are different defense issues, and they don't wear you out.

Gaza is much easier to guard ever since a fence was erected around it, and much easier to contain now that soldiers have left.

Except for a rare tunnel, the IDF has it much easier "defending", and can spend more time on various attack scenarios.

And currently, periods of action or inaction are governed by us deciding to conduct more or less "peilut yezuma".

and, once again, that won't change because of any redeployment. It will only change if decide to operate differently.

Peilut yezuma is bull****.

Hamas is dragging us to low intensity combat which is a clear Israeli weakness because it is a high tech army, and has low familiarity with the terrain and is disliked by the local population.

If we pullout, and then instead of getting dragged in, act in escalating steps - we will have the upper hand.

Remember Lebanon in 82: We had a great time in the first strike, and utterly defeated opposition. Then we stayed trying to defend out territory and got a** raped.

Compare the waste of time we had in the territories until defensive shield, and the huge effect defensive shield had.
We were also smart enough to withdraw to safe perimeters after that.

Being left inside the territories drags us into low-intensity combat where we don't have the initiative and lose ground, because we can only lose, and the pals can only gain.

I'm not so sure about it. You can see the mainstream switching opinions pretty much all the time, whenever a new hope, or yet another disappointment from the palestinians occurs. I don't think there is a new solid paradigm that "we need to get out of J&S/WB, no matter what". It's quite fluid. Most people now are in denial about the disengagement from Gaza, for example, or have no idea whether what sharon did was the right thing. The latest is more from personal questioning, not solid polling, but still, that's the vibe I am getting.

I agree that most people are in denial.

However most people already gave up on the 'Israel ha-shlema' dream and want to disengage. True, they fear it will somehow help terrorism - but the large majority already wants to disengage and let the pals kill each other.

This is a false dichotomy. The increase in individualism, and increase of prosperity, led to the fall of the old family that put enormous amounts of extra strain on an unprepared government ( justice system, and education system )

What increase in prosperity happened in Bat Yam that lead to the growing of arsim?
The problems of the justice system and education system I won't go into.

not nearly as much as now. I talked to some real old timers.

now as much as now, true, but it was always bad.
read articles by uri milstein for instance.

again, not completely correct. WRT land forces, Colonels and generals used to get formal military education, both academic, and non-academic in nature. Now, it seems that an MBA is a legitimate choice for education if one wants to become a corps or regional command CO.

The Israeli PUM education is a joke.
And getting a civilian MBA in sociology / "defence studies" (which is just another name for international politics) is no replacement for formal strategical education.

I know people who wrote and still write drills, doctrines and techniques.

I don't know them, but I try to read what I can find.

Anything above the tactical level is a pseudo-bable joke.

The whole concept of Effects Based Warfare is a good one, but in the absense of anyone really understanding how to set effects, how to cause them, or how to measure their success - everything that came out was nonsenes.

Agam commands contain lots of unrelated stuff, such as thier analysis of political conditions and what political conditions they want to create. The practical orders presented later are bland and usually bear no relation to the goals set out, nor do they contain any measurable achievements.

I never really GOT the Tohad division. It should concern itself first and foremost with combined arms. There is a separate deparment in the GOC.

If you read the previous Maarachot, you'll see that even local commanders understand how hopelessly out of touch Tohad are, and how nobody really listens to them, and that Tohad are disconnected from the realities on the ground.

The work we subcontracted to the planning directorate was highly professional, academic in level, and scientifically oriented. To put it into the army perspective and realities is the job of intelligent young officers such as me and you.

Maybe so because i imagine it related to technical issues with which you deal.

Agat's strategic wing is basically dreaming up political scenarios and does nothing to connect it to the army perspective. Infact, most of the time the orders in practice developed by Agam, are counter-effective to the preface in same order.