Gaza operation – halfway effort?
October 6, 2004 13:23 by ManagingTeam
Military analyst Elliot Chodoff thinks the IDF’s Gaza operation is an unfortunate waste of time:
The operation is a mix of intensification of existing tactics along with a massive insertion of infantry and armor into the areas surrounding Beit Hanun and Jebalya refugee camp. Both are hotbeds of terrorist activity, and sources of many attacks in the past, including suicide bombings along with the Kassam rockets. Insofar as the IDF has stepped up its campaign to eliminate terrorists, particularly the “middle management,” through direct attacks, either from the air or on the ground, it will succeed in reducing the effectiveness of the terrorist organizations. But the halfway measure of a ground incursion into Gaza, without actually hunting down and eliminating the terrorists and their infrastructure, as was accomplished in the West Bank during and after Operation Defensive Wall in April 2002, will prove to be a waste of time and resources at best, and politically and militarily detrimental at worst.
The IDF is correct in its natural reluctance to enter the Jebalya refugee camp. Jebalya, one of the densest populated areas in the world, represents the worst sort of nightmare of urban warfare imaginable. However, approaching the camp without entering it only demonstrates to the terrorists that they are safe from IDF attack inside the confines of their camps and towns and every successful Kassam launch during this period further reinforces that impression.. Given that the IDF will not remain in place around the camp indefinitely, the terrorists need only to bide their time and wait for the inevitable withdrawal before resuming the Kassam attacks. In addition, the stalemate resulting from the inconclusive operation is likely to instigate attempts to revive Arafat’s importance as he bills himself as the voice of moderation that can bring about a ceasefire and stop the Kassam launchings.
(To receive Chodoff’s newsletter — cowritten with two other analysts — sign up here.)
S R
4:17 pm
Oct 06, 2004
The IDF can do one of two things. They can lay seige to the camp, cutting off water, electricity and supplies until the terrorists disarm or they can go in with ground troops, backed by close air support with the wellfare of the civillian population not playing ANY factor at all.
Knowing the rediculous sensitivity the Israeli left have toward the supposed ‘innocent palestinian population’, each soldier will spend more time trying not to kill civillians than killing terrorists. The result of this option will be an absolute disaster with the IDF being forced to withdraw without having accomplished anything and being seen as being defeated by ‘refugees’. Imagine the domino effect this would produce?
The best of a bad choice is to lay seige to the Camp although I personaly would very much prefer the second option hitting both terrorists and the civillians who harbour and support them hard.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
alvin_day
4:50 pm
Oct 06, 2004
There are two factors involved:
1. Israel hopes the blow to the Palestinian terrorist groups, who have lost many men in this campaign, will leave them ripe for accepting suggestions that they cease firing rockets. In addition to this comes the hope that the civilian population will pressure Hamas to cease these activities, given that the general population isn’t keen on having the war come so close to them.
It seems that this is how Israel stopped the Palestinians from using BeitJala to fire on Jerusalem’s Gilo neighborhood. Israel hopes it will happen again here.
2. Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 came after Israel was steeped in blood. It came after a monthly escalation in Palestinian attacks. When over 130 Israelis were killed in a single month, there was no choice but to go right in!
This isn’t so today. The Kassam rockets have killed very few. There is an understandable lack of willingness by Israel and by the Israeli people for a deep and very bloody battle inside Jebalya.
Israel hopes method 1 will work. If it fails and more Israelis are killed, then eventually Israel will go right in.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
SR
11:00 pm
Oct 06, 2004
alvin
‘Israel hopes method 1 will work. If it fails and more Israelis are killed, then eventually Israel will go right in.’
Don’t kid yourself. The Israelis have shown time and time again how cheap their own blood is when trying to score propoganda points. Remmember the Dolphinarium massacre? That SHOULD have been the day before the intifada was put down. 21 teenagers wasn’t enough blood and we had to wait until 130 civillians were murdered in one month before the IDF went into action. And that ONLY in the ‘west bank’.
Arieh O’Sullivan wrote in the Jerusalem Post that the recent action against Hamas terrorists training in a sports camp in Gaza was a first in that before, terrorists training in the open were NOT targeted!
I am unfortunately, daily losing my respect for Israel and indeed the Jewish people. It appears that most of us would prefer to lay down and die so long as the international community finally approves of something we do.
I hope very much that I am wrong.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Josh
5:18 am
Oct 07, 2004
Would’nt you say, S.R., that we are building a more or less airtight case? at least in that we could honestly say that “we tried to deal with it in every way we could concieve, but They kept escalating the hostilities!”?
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Rob
12:08 pm
Oct 07, 2004
Josh, an airtight case maybe … but what if you or your loved ones had to pay with your life for that, in the form of victims of terrorism. Always think about these poor deceased souls before making theoretical, abstract arguments. We who remain living, often comfortably far from the action, can have no idea of the pain of loss carried by so many in the front line.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Pascal
5:07 pm
Oct 07, 2004
It’s a disturbing commentary and makes good points. Yes, Israel has sometimes held back, and I do not understand why. To blunt international criticism? If so, that is a ridiculous reason.
As far as the latter is concerned, Israel could learn from the Arabs that honesty has no place in international discourse. I was appalled by the public comments from Dov Weinglass. Israel should make believe that it is in favor of a Palestinian state. Saying “honestly” that it is not makes no sense.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Elliot Chodoff
7:05 pm
Oct 07, 2004
The issue is not whether or not Israel can make an airtight case. It won’t matter anyway, since the media will always find a way to spin the story against an Israeli military operation.
The difficult decision is whether or not to enter a hostile, dense urban environment, knowing that the likely result will include friendly as well as noncombatant casualties. I understand the decision not to go in; I don’t envy the decision-makers. I just disagree with them. Until we decide to fight terrorists all the way, we will continue to lose victims to their attacks.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
alvin_day
8:08 pm
Oct 07, 2004
Regarding Dov Weinglass. The answer is both yes and no. By giving up all of this land right now, in exchange for nothing, Israel wishes to be able to not have to give anything else and not have a ‘peace process’ for as long as it takes the Palestinians to decide to have a real Peace process. It could happen in a year, if they so wish. But since it seems they have no such wish, it could be an indefinite pause.
And so Dov’s assesment is both true and misleading at the same time.
As regards a Palestinian state, I think they’ll be offered to have on on Gaza + a small part of the West Bank (Sharon has announced he’ll be clearing a few settlements there as well.
This will be an interim border up untill they choose peace.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Robbie
11:21 pm
Oct 07, 2004
It is a fact that the Palestinian terrorist have no problem hiding behind the Palestinian civilian population. Israel’s current actions, while well-intended, are unlikely to bring about the total ceasation of the kassam firings. Time, as always, will work against the IDF. That said, if it is unacceptable to allow for the shelling of towns within the so-called Green Line, and if 2 innocent Israeli deaths are 2 too many, then Israel should take the next step now – which is to go into Gaza and wipe out the terrorists – whatever the military, humanitarian and diplomatic costs!
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
KiwiB
12:49 am
Oct 08, 2004
The reasoning behind not targeting groups of Hamas members openly training is not truely known. It may be fear of civilian casualties, it may be from fear of openly bias news reports. The reality is – the media let the whole thing slide because nobody could deny it was a justified military action by Israel.
There are other elements you may want to consider. The foot soldiers, those who instigate Hamas policy in their neighbourhoods, carry the banners, rouse the public at funerals … they are distinctly different from the masterminds and local leaders. Israel has not relented in targeting the leadership of these terrorist groups. Why the distinction? Hamas is, as with Hizbollah, filling an important social need. It provides a *militant* base who, on the whole at least, do not action terrorist attacks, nor ask for involvement. They are still associated with the struggle, have membership in a group to counter Fatah, the P.A. and others and benefit from their own corruption and crime.
These members reperesent a large fraction of the Palestinian population – they will always be there, getting killed in large numbers or not. They provide a Demographic which may agree to a lasting peace. They provide agents for Israeli security forces. And in general they will obey with family or clan based wishes.
Israel has always been able to adapt to the realities of the Arab mindset. Sometimes, I feel, they let the Palestinians carry their weapons and shout and shoot at tanks. It’s really only (in this conflict at least) when you hurt civilians that the state hunts you down. This is all done because in the end a lasting peace will have to be made.
Just my thoughts anyway.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Joel
7:42 pm
Oct 09, 2004
War to the knife, knife to the hilt!
Israel should have finished the PLO off at least right after the Dolphinarium or at least on September 12, 2001 or at least during February 1996. Israel has paid a terrible price by its reluctance to act as any self respecting nation would have done when its existence was in the balance. What took them so long to launch Defensive Shield?
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
1:05 am
Oct 11, 2004
I agree with all of the above. Find the bad guys and kill them.
A. Easier said than done, anyway you look at it.
B. We are getting there. We’re just working our way to the bottom. If any war could have been faught that way, it would have.
C. We are, I admit, sparing the top of the heap- Arafat.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
lesbian-forced-free-i-w-u
6:10 am
Mar 05, 2005
lesbian forced free
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0