Halutz v Diskin
Ynet (30/10/05), Shimon Shiffer writes:
"The terror attack in Hadera shows how difficult it is to declare a winner in this conflict, not even by points. The meeting convened by Mofaz Wednesday evening at his office in IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv, where responses to the bombing were weighed, brought forward all the familiar arguments – only the faces have changed. Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin, as opposed to his predecessor, Avi Dichter, warned against getting carried away with operations that would drag all Palestinian terror groups back to the battle field. Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, as opposed to his predecessor, Moshe Yaalon, supported heavy blows anywhere, against any target. Diskin suggested focusing on the Islamic Jihad and avoiding actions that could hurt the Palestinian population and anger it. On the other hand, Halutz said: “If we sustain casualties in the Hadera market, I suggest that we don’t take humanitarian aspects into consideration. Even one person killed on our side makes consideration for the Palestinians not worthwhile.”
It goes without saying that the suicide bombing at Hadera this week is wicked and morally repugnant. It is also a given that the Palestinian Authority could be doing more to prevent such attacks and simply pleading that they are weak and ineffectual is not sufficient. The question arises what should Israel's response be. As is noted above, the current head of the Shin Bet believes any response should be measured and directed against Islamic Jihad, limiting any damage to ordinary Palestinians as opposed forHalutz, Chief of Staff who suggests a far harsher response.
I raise the above issue as I think often what may seems to be a small tactical dispute between these two officials is of far greater significance strategically. A harsh response whilst perhaps electorally popular does not serve Israel in the long term. Rather, a proportionate response, localised and directed at the parties responsible achieves its ends without escalating the situation and leaving the prospect of diplomacy with the PA in tact. If there is one thing Israel should learn from the past 4 years is that brute force alone is an insufficient basis for dealing with terrorism and the conflict. At its core the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a political dispute between two people who have claims over the same piece of land and the resolution of the conflict will only occur once the land is equitably distributed. Military measures alone whilst in the short term may limit the conflict from brewing over but in the long term will prove ineffectual. Any military response therefore needs to be measured. The advice of Diskin should be carefully heeded.
"The terror attack in Hadera shows how difficult it is to declare a winner in this conflict, not even by points. The meeting convened by Mofaz Wednesday evening at his office in IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv, where responses to the bombing were weighed, brought forward all the familiar arguments – only the faces have changed. Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin, as opposed to his predecessor, Avi Dichter, warned against getting carried away with operations that would drag all Palestinian terror groups back to the battle field. Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, as opposed to his predecessor, Moshe Yaalon, supported heavy blows anywhere, against any target. Diskin suggested focusing on the Islamic Jihad and avoiding actions that could hurt the Palestinian population and anger it. On the other hand, Halutz said: “If we sustain casualties in the Hadera market, I suggest that we don’t take humanitarian aspects into consideration. Even one person killed on our side makes consideration for the Palestinians not worthwhile.”
It goes without saying that the suicide bombing at Hadera this week is wicked and morally repugnant. It is also a given that the Palestinian Authority could be doing more to prevent such attacks and simply pleading that they are weak and ineffectual is not sufficient. The question arises what should Israel's response be. As is noted above, the current head of the Shin Bet believes any response should be measured and directed against Islamic Jihad, limiting any damage to ordinary Palestinians as opposed forHalutz, Chief of Staff who suggests a far harsher response.
I raise the above issue as I think often what may seems to be a small tactical dispute between these two officials is of far greater significance strategically. A harsh response whilst perhaps electorally popular does not serve Israel in the long term. Rather, a proportionate response, localised and directed at the parties responsible achieves its ends without escalating the situation and leaving the prospect of diplomacy with the PA in tact. If there is one thing Israel should learn from the past 4 years is that brute force alone is an insufficient basis for dealing with terrorism and the conflict. At its core the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a political dispute between two people who have claims over the same piece of land and the resolution of the conflict will only occur once the land is equitably distributed. Military measures alone whilst in the short term may limit the conflict from brewing over but in the long term will prove ineffectual. Any military response therefore needs to be measured. The advice of Diskin should be carefully heeded.
posted by SJ at 7:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home