A military failure and strategic vacuum

[bemildred]

The severe incident in Beit Hanun in the Gaza Strip has again dragged the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a gloomy crossroad from both a tactical and strategic perspective. From the tactical perspective, it's clear that the lessons of June, when seven members of a Palestinian family were killed on a Gaza beach by errant Israeli artillery fire, were not implemented. Evidence of this is the fact that the new division commander in the Gaza Strip, Brigadier General Chico Tamir, asked for a reduction of artillery fire when he assumed his new assignment. It was clear then that artillery fire against densely populated areas would end up killing many civilians.

"At this stage, the IDF should cease its 'fire box' artillery shelling, which includes possibilities for repeated mistakes," Haaretz wrote in June. "What the Americans allow themselves to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, the IDF cannot allow itself."

In principle, it is correct to argue that the Beit Hanun affair did not begin there; it was preceded by four Qassam rockets that landed in the heart of Ashkelon the previous day. Two other rockets were fired at Sderot yesterday morning.

No country would remain indifferent to rocket fire on its cities. The only problem is the lack of proportionality regarding Israel's response. During the war in Lebanon, many people in Europe asked: "Why aren't there many more Israeli fatalities from Hezbollah's missile fire?" Apparently, support for Israel would have increased if more Israelis had been killed.

Haaretz

[bemildred]

1. 'Strategic corporal' is in charge

The series of military foul-ups that has not stopped since the war in Lebanon, and reached a peak yesterday with the deadly shelling in Beit Hanun, is an indication that something is amiss in the political echelon's supervision over the Israel Defense Forces.

Time after time, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz have been forced "to express regret" for indiscriminate strikes on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, or dangerous friction between the Israel Air Force and German naval vessels off the Lebanese coast.

The defense minister's aides explain that in many instances, Peretz functions as a moderating influence by blocking IDF operational proposals and demonstrating willingness to take risks to alleviate the distress of the Palestinians. According to the aides, however, Peretz does not approve every act of shelling by IDF artillery units or every scrambling of IAF aircraft. His job, they say, is to determine policy.

One can understand this, but the outcome is that practical policy is being determined and implemented by the commander of the artillery battery, the officer in the field or an even lower-ranking military official. Ehud Barak called this phenomenon "the strategic corporal," whose shortcomings could ignite the entire Middle East.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785632.html

[breakaleg]

2. I find this hugely offensive...

"During the war in Lebanon, many people in Europe asked: "Why aren't there many more Israeli fatalities from Hezbollah's missile fire?" Apparently, support for Israel would have increased if more Israelis had been killed."

Only an idiot would think such a thing. The reason people are surprised there aren't more Israeli casualties from Hezbollah, is because if you go an destroy an entire country, then one would think there is some kind of reasonable cause. Instead of the numbers showed Israel killed far more innocents than Hezbollah has. Perhaps the world is just asking for simple explanations for straight forward circumstances that Israel cannot answer.

So they resort to wild accustations instead.

We don't want more Israeli's killed. We feel Israel was unjustified in their actions because while many rockets may have been fired, many hit dirt.