Political Consequences of Military Operations
October 11th, 2007About 6 weeks ago, I posted an article entitled “Recycled Solutions Won’t Stop the Cycle of Violence.” I was very appreciative of the thoughtful comments received by the members of this community. It definitely stimulated a lot of thought on my end.
I recently spoke at a US Army symposium about the Israeli experience over the last seven years. The title of my presentation was the Political Consequences of Military Operations. It details, from the Israeli perspective, the desired political end-state, the military operations conducted, and the actual political outcome. And includes Israeli Lessons Learned, an analysis of the divergent (Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian, and Iranian) perspectives, an estimate of what can be expected over the next 6 months (the first bit, unfortunately has already started to occur), implications for the US in Iraq, and what Israel should learn from the US experience in Iraq.
The goal of this presentation and my sharing of it with this community is to provide a window into Israeli thinking and views about the last seven years - and how it influences current thinking. I don’t expect to change anyone’s opinion of Israeli policy, but this may give some of you a window into Israeli decision-making and key influences.
I hope some of you will find this of interest.
http://www.adamharmon.com/documents/CSISymposiumPresentation.ppt
Loading ...
Loading...
I am curious as to how you identified the desired Israeli political end-state.
Also, one of these desires is for a secular Palestinian state, which in fact I would support, however how can Israel expect that when they themselves are a Jewish state?
And also in light of their ‘lessons learnt’, what do you propose they will do? Increase military operations? or Increase diplomacy?
Hi Tamara -
Thanks for taking the time to read through my presentation. I identified the “desired” Israeli political end-state based on the stated political objectives of successive Israeli governments. At each interval, as I’m sure you noticed, those objectives change as Israeli-Palestinian relations changed. During Oslo, for instance, the political goal was to support the development of a proto-government (the PA). But after the decision to re-take military control of the West Bank as part of Operation Defensive Shield, a key political goal was the delegitimize the PA leadership by exposing its direct ties to terror organizations for international community and the extent of its corruption to the local population. All without changing the desire for the establishment of a Palestinian state — just pushing off the “when” and deciding against the “who” (as in, not-Arafat).
You also raise a very interesting question regarding whether it is possible to be both a secular nation while still strongly self-identifying as a “Jewish” nation. In terms of the liberal, democratic nature of Israeli institutions and the cultural norms, someone would be hard put to characterize Israel as a country that is any less secular than Britain, Germany, France, or the US. That said, I see how it is easy to assume that there is a conflict. It’s important to keep in mind that being “Jewish” is only tangentially about following a set of religious principles. Like being Arab or Persian, being Jewish is primarily an ethnic affiliation. As someone who is relatively secular, I am not less “Jewish” than a neighbor who keeps kosher and follows all the mitzvot. They are more religious, but not more Jewish than myself.
And even though Israel aims to maintain the primacy of its Jewish character, there are cultural characteristics that are distinctly “Israeli” and that have nothing to do with being “Jewish.” One of the interesting outcomes is that there is an increasing cultural gap between Israelis and Jews living outside the country.
Regarding your third question, as I tried to indicate in the presentation, it is my belief that Israel needs to continue its current tempo of operations in the West Bank. If it were not for the security fence and all the other daily operations conducted in the West Bank, terror attacks against Israeli civilians would occur. Until the Palestinian Authority and its security forces actively engage terrorists, the IDF will continue to conduct operations in the West Bank. I think diplomacy is still a very important part of the Israeli strategy, since the goal is to enable a Palestinian state to be established in the West Bank and Gaza. After all, the Israeli and Palestinian governments have been talking and negotiating for months. I don’t think it’s an either or situation. From the Israeli perspective, its necessary to maintain a strong presence in the West Bank to ensure stability (since successive attacks set both parties into a defensive posture that is disruptive to diplomatic efforts) while working to achieve a negotiated settlement with Palestinian leaders.
I hope I answered your questions. And again, thanks for taking the time to read through and think about my presentation.
Hi Adam, this is a very informative, well-structured presentation and I would like to thank you for sharing it with us. I hope you don’t mind that I forward it to a few friends.
Hi Murad -
Thanks for your kind words. I’m glad that you found it informative. Yes, feel free to share it with friends. I place it on the web to help increase knowledge and awareness of the Israeli perspective.
Hello Adam
Do you know about the Peace Maker Game? It’s a computer game where you can play both the israeli as well as the palestinean leader in order to achieve a two-state solution.
The idea is that anyone can get to know the thinking of either side.
What I “learned” from playing the israeli part, is that the illegal settlements in the west bank and their (partly) fanatic inhabitants are one of the greatest obstacles to peace. But seemingly no israeli administration has ever done something against them.
Do you agree with that?
If so: What do you think Israel could and should do in that respect?
Dear Adam,
Thank you for your response.
I think it is a little simplistic and also a little naive to base the ‘desired’ end-state simply on the stated political objectives of successive Israeli governments. Their ‘desires’ (even in the short term) go far beyond what they ’state’.
And all without changing the desire for the re-take of military control of the West Bank with Operation Defensive Shield.
I accept and understand that being Jewish goes beyond religious beliefs, but many Muslims would also say that being a Muslim is more than a religious identity, it is a way of life, its part of their culture and tradition.
Hi Dominik -
I was actually unfamiliar with that game. I took a look at the link. I’ll try to make some time to play.
And I’m glad that it gave you an opportunity to think about some of the critical issues. That said, I don’t agree with the contention that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are the greatest obstacle to peace. Clearly, Jews living in West Bank communities is a genuine source of angst, anger, and tension for Palestinians living in the West Bank and others around the world, but it doesn’t actually make it an obstacle for peace.
I wish that the conflict was that simple. Remove Jews from settlements = peace. But as we all know, and as I’m sure the game reflects, the challenges are far more complicated than that.
As I’m sure you’re aware, Israel has removed settlements in the recent past. When negotiations with Palestinian leaders broke down — and not over the question of Israeli settlements - Israeli administrations implemented a policy of withdrawal or disengagement. Removing all Israeli presence from Gaza didn’t improve relations between Israelis and Palestinians. And the area in the West Bank didn’t become less violent after several settlements were removed.
Some might suggest that not enough of the settlements were removed, that all must be gone in order to enable change that would lead to peace. But the settlements could all be removed tomorrow and we still wouldn’t be closer to peace. Arguing about the settlements is a red herring. It’s a great way to get Palestinians and Israelis riled up, but this is actually a side issue. The issues that matter — and you just have to follow the current diplomatic offensive of the Palestinian leadership to see what issues they think need to be resolved in order to achieve peace - are a territorial exchange that will lead to a contiguous state between the West Bank and Gaza, sovereignty over Jerusalem, and how to meet the needs of Palestinians living abroad.
Palestinian diplomatic teams will trot out Jewish settlements to create media stories to rally their own base and in the hope that it might add pressure on Israel, but the thing you need to keep in mind is that they aren’t negotiating about Jewish settlements. In fact, it looks like Palestinian leaders are considering a territorial exchange that sounds much like the one Israel offered in 2000. Palestinians gain a contiguous state and Israelis annex the major settlement bloc.
So in answer to your question, I think Israelis should follow-through on negotiations that enable an exchange of territory, whereby Israel gives up some land of its own that is not in contention so that the Palestinians can join Gaza and the West Bank and the Palestinians cede some of their land to Israel so that the Israelis can keep the major settlements.
And Dominic, I can’t get Sprüngli chocolate - only Lindt. I’m very jealous. Enjoy it!
Hi Tamara -
Thanks for taking the time to read through and respond to my comment.
Perhaps I’m being naïve. I’m certainly open to that possibility. But I honestly believe — and I’m speaking as someone who has served in elite military units and who has personal relationships with several decision-makers - that there is no difference between the “desired” and “stated” political objective.
Part of that comes from the fact that Israel is such an open society and has such a relentless media. Things don’t stay secret for long. If there were an “unstated” agenda, it would get out. The only type of things that stay secret, and sometimes not even those, relate to military operations and intelligence activity. When it comes to Israeli politicians, keeping secrets is not a strong suit.
Even if you don’t believe me - and that’s fair enough - and think that there are plans within plans or unspoken goals that Israel is trying to achieve, just look at my presentation and thoughts as representing mainstream Israeli public opinion (meaning neither from the left or right).
I may not have understood this part of your comment. So my apologies if I’ve misrepresented your intent. But the decision to re-establish military control over the West Bank doesn’t reflect a change in the desire for a Palestinian state to be established. It was, from an Israeli perspective, necessary in order to stem the rising tide of terror attacks on Israeli civilians. Prior to Operation Defensive Shield, as even the relatively left wing Btselem article you linked to alludes, there were almost daily attacks against Israeli civilians. Immediately after and since, suicide-bombings have been reduced to practically nil. Fair enough if you don’t think Israel should have conducted that operation or if the ongoing operations shouldn’t be taking place.
But the decision to enable the Israeli military to operate in the West Bank was taken out of a desire to provide security for Israeli civilians. Israeli government policy and aim is to work toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. Many may not agree with the Israeli vision of what constitutes a Palestinian state, and that’s fair enough, but this is still seen as a strategic goal.
As for your point about Muslim identity, that’s fair enough. And perhaps also a good starting point for mutual understanding as well.
Adam,
Yes, I did a search for you and was aware that you served in elite Israeli military units and was also aware of your publication. I appreciate that you must have a very personal knowledge and outlook on these issues.
I also am much happier to look at your analysis and findings as a representation of the mainstream Israeli population, not of the Israeli government. I think, and this is with all governments, soldiers rarely know the whole truth, they are most of the time just being brave patrioctic people. How many determined American soldiers, after having served in Iraq, are now speaking out in opposition of the war?
Ofcourse Israel and any other nation has the right to defend itself, but Israel’s defense is always excessive and we can see this from the war with Lebanon last year, and numerous other issues, such as the ‘Wall’. Also, many other countries are not allowed to defend themselves against Israel, for fear of a full blown war. This can be seen with the recent Israeli air raid against Syria. If the roles were switched I can be almost sure that Israel would have reacted very differently, and would more than likely have been supported by the US government.
There are double standards that are inescapable. This needs to change. Mutual understanding can only be reached when the people are treated equally.