A comprehensive negotiated “land for peace” settlement is the only way to make support for Hezbollah and Hamas evaporate.
Conservatives, especially neoconservatives, (and even some pro-Israeli moderates and liberals), admire Israel’s use of muscular tactics to safeguard its security. Many conservatives also admire Robert E. Lee’s aggressive, offense-oriented tactical victories in the U.S. Civil War. But like Lee, who ultimately lost the war, the Israelis are exhibiting enormous strategic ineptitude.
Lee, using the Napoleonic tactics of the offense, won many brilliant victories by attacking the superior forces of the Union Army. But Lee lost sight of the most basic strategic factor. Although he inflicted many Union losses, such aggressive tactics also caused his own casualty rates to be very high. Lee simply ran out of men before the larger Union Army did. When the Union eventually installed a general opposite Lee who was competent in both strategy and tactics — Ulysses S. Grant — the North took advantage of superior troop numbers to grind down Lee’s rebel forces. Grant often lost tactically on the battlefield, but relentlessly advanced toward Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, using attrition to destroy Lee’s army.
Like Lee, the Israelis are winning the battle tactically — destroying fighters and projectiles of Hezbollah and Hamas. In Lebanon, they may even succeed in backing Hezbollah away from the Israeli-Lebanese border and establishing a buffer zone patrolled by the weak Lebanese army and some sort of multinational force. But the Israeli offensives in Lebanon and Gaza will destroy neither Hezbollah nor Hamas, nor the motivation for violence that underlies these groups. Because the Israeli public still remembers the 18-year quagmire that resulted from Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Israel probably will not again launch the full ground invasion of Lebanon needed to finally crush Hezbollah. Israeli air strikes alone cannot kill all Hezbollah fighters and destroy all of their weapons and infrastructure. Similarly, since the Israelis just withdrew their forces from Gaza, it is unlikely that they would permanently reoccupy it in order to fully eradicate Hamas. In fact, Israel’s grossly disproportionate collective punishment of Lebanon and Gaza for the killing and capturing of a few Israeli soldiers will only fuel the anti-Israel fire in both places and the larger Arab world. When hatred has been stoked, lost fighters and weapons can be replaced — and rather easily.
The aggressive Israeli policy of an offensive “defense” created the threat from these groups in the first place. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 to get rid of the Palestinian group Fatah, its invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon ultimately led to the radicalization of parts of Lebanon’s Shi’ite community and the creation of Hezbollah. In Palestine, Israel originally supported Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah. As Israel’s continued occupation began to radicalize the Palestinians and Fatah’s corruption became exposed, Hamas gained support. Today, it runs the Palestinian Authority.
Strategically, Israel’s disproportionate use of military force will not wipe out these groups or the support that they receive from their respective populations. Only a comprehensive negotiated, not unilateral, Middle East settlement — in which Israel gives back all of the occupied territories in exchange for peace and normal relations with its Arab neighbors — will choke off popular support for these radical groups. Instead of futilely trying to drain the swamp of terrorists militarily, Israel should concentrate on draining their motivation for violence using political means.
Although the Americans have run into a quagmire in Iraq, they finally realize, at least theoretically, that they can’t defeat the Iraqi insurgency through military means. They are attempting to negotiate their way out, but it may be too late. (The Sunni insurgents deliberately attacked the Shi’a in order to start a sectarian civil war, which is now raging.) Unfortunately, the Israelis are even further behind the slow Americans in coming to terms with reality. They still fail to realize that military solutions, as well as unilateral political actions, are not the answer to guerrilla war and terrorism. A comprehensive negotiated “land for peace” settlement is the only way to make support for Hezbollah and Hamas evaporate. The more Israel pounds Lebanon and Gaza with its own acts of terrorism, the less likely a negotiated settlement—and an end to terrorism by Hezbollah and Hamas — becomes.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
This is the kind of thinking that is shaping the minds of our young people. Give the bully your lunch money and he'll leave you alone until tomorrow. What a cure!!
Comment by Gary Hyde | July 25, 2006
Robert E. Lee wasn't fighting an enemy who thought his very existence was an abomination.
The last time that Israel did not occupy those territories was 1967. There's something about that year that strikes a bell, but I can't put my finger on it. Evidently, it doesn't ring a bell with the author either.
The land issue is merely an excuse to exterminate Israel. How did they used to put it? Something along the lines of "We want to drive them into the sea". That's a euphemism for 'dead'. Not moved to another location on a map. Dead.
Wasn't there an accord, way back when, where the Palestinians were to be given pretty much everything they wanted but the catch was that they had to recognize the state of Israel? Wasn't Arafat's response "No deal"? (followed by another intifada). If anyone has details on that accord, please let us know. I'm a little fuzzy on the details.
I'm having a hard time believing that someone could write this article and actually believe it. How many times do arab leaders have to say that they want to destroy Israel before some people will actually believe it?
The author is correct about Israel's incursions not wiping out Hezbollah. I don't think that's even the point. I think the point is to get the Lebanese people to get rid of Hezbollah. The lesson is that if you harbor terrorists you pay a price.
The "you're just making more enemies" argument is almost comical. Their country is surrounded by countries that hate their guts and want them dead. It seems as if every time they do an opinion poll in those countries, at least 40% of the people support whoever is against Israel. Despite the obvious fact that what most of those people think doesn't mean squat in Arab countries, they're supposed to be trying to win a popularity contest with their enemies?
We're lucky we live in a country that is not threatened with destruction. Yes, we are under threat of terrorist attacks and that is terrible. However, we aren't at a point where we might be invaded, conquered and executed. Israel doesn't have that luxury.
Comment by Ron S. | July 25, 2006
Giving land for peace has not worked and never will…..
Islamic facism is not interested in peace to start with…
Comment by JaneNC | July 25, 2006
Liberals should give up their enormous wealth, land, and daughters to the Islamo-Fascists and get back to us with the results before we employ their plan.
Comment by Joseph | July 25, 2006
Excellent comments! Ron especially, you nailed it.
Looking at a map of the region, Israel is a tiny little speck surrounded by huge, venomous enemies. How anyone can think that Israel should just give up more of its land and roll over to appease murderers is beyond me.
Maybe if such a strategy had worked? Even once? Is there any moment in history, from the playground at school to the great superpowers, where letting evil get its way has solved any problem or brought about peace and good will? Perhaps the author can cite one instance of success?
Such proposals are colored by a fundamental flaw in understanding. Too many people believe that humans are basically good and rational. They think that there is always two sides to a story, and that there is some good reason why terrorists act the way they do. We just need to understand them, affirm them, embrace them, and show them respect and kindness. Then they will change, responding to their innate goodness. They will be enlightened by our toleance and aura of love, and learn to live at peace with everyone.
More people, including the author, need to learn that there are some people who are intent on doing evil because they are evil. We don't need to understand them, we need to make it so they cannot do evil any more.
Comment by Rich Sherlock | July 25, 2006
I don't think that Israel is alone to defend itself, it never was! America was always there to support it, and so was the international opinion. Beginning to think at peace would be a good thing for the people in Israel and for the countries surrounding it. It’s non only violence that keep away the enemies but also strong and good friends. I think that “land for peace” could be a good decision.
Comment by Adelaida | July 25, 2006
"In Lebanon, they may even succeed in backing Hezbollah away from the Israeli-Lebanese border and establishing a buffer zone patrolled by the weak Lebanese army and some sort of multinational force."
That, more or less, Mr. Eland, is the stated objective. It is not clear why you are suggesting that this operation is anything more.
Comment by Nick | July 25, 2006
The idea that Israel can trade land for peace has proven itself to be false. The Arab leadership need someone else to blame for their governments’ inability or unwillingness to improve the standard of living for the average Arab. They, like Hitler, direct their countrymen’s disenchantment toward distant enemies – the state of Israel and the United States.
That being said I think Israel has missed at least one important opportunity to force Hamas’ hand. After they won election and it became clear that the economic sanctions were going to be enforced, Hamas offered to sign a 10 year armistice with Israel without recognizing its right to exist or its territorial claims. This is very similar to what has happened between Taiwan and China and North and South Korea. North and South Korea are still at war following the 1950 invasion. They merely have an armistice in place. Israel could have countered Hamas’ offer with a longer term armistice which with time might have grown into a de facto peace and recognition. Neither China nor Taiwan recognize the other as the real government of a unified China.
Even if Hamas later broke the agreement by attacking Israel before the 10 years was up they would have forfeited any sympathy from Europe; and I prefer to believe that even American liberals would have had a hard time supporting them. If they waited for 10 years and had those 10 years of prosperity I suspect that most of the Palestinians would not, by that time, been wiling to support a war with Israel.
It is possible I am being naiveté but I prefer to believe in the legitimacy of treaties and that when they are broken they offer the aggrieved party some increased legitimacy in any military conflict.
Comment by DF Lickiss | July 25, 2006
I know that America has always supported Israel, but I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of it from the international community. The U.N. for instance always seems to reprimand Israel for violence, but the arabs who commit violence generally get a pass. Whenever Israel does anything to strike back at aggression against it, the world community is quick to rebuke it. Not just this time, but again and again.
Adelaida, what friend would land for peace buy? Palestinians? I don't think so. As soon as Israel pulled out from Gaza (giving the palestinians more land) and what happened? Rocket attacks from Gaza. I think the only land for peace deal that would sate the arab world would be for the Jews to leave Israel completely. And I think that would only be a temporary solution. I think the arabs would find a reason to attack them no matter where they were.
No matter how many times this happens, the West doesn't seem to want to learn. Israel will never have 'friends' in the region. The best they can get is respect. In that region, to get respect you have to have and show strength.
Going back to one of my original points, Israel and the Jews were hated (and attacked) when they were at their original (pre-1967) boundaries. What logic tells us that by giving up the land they acquired it would appease the arabs in the region? It's a hopeful thought, but as Rich pointed out, it has never worked before and there is no evidence that it would work now. Is there a scrap of evidence anywhere that would lead us to think that land for peace would work? Any?
Comment by Ron S. | July 25, 2006
Does the author know anything about the Civil War?
Robert E. Lee lost because at Gettysburg, he switched to an offensive strategy
from the defensive, against the advice of General Longstreet. Had he occupied
the high ground when he had the opportunity, and forced the Yankees to attack,
that battle, and the war, and history, might have been written differently. But
is the author serious? Is he blind? Is he just a fool? How many times has
land-for-peace failed? How much liebensraum is Israel expected to cede to the
Arab occupier? History has shown that land-for-peace doesn't work; sooner
or later you run out of land and the aggressor runs out of patience. The reason
most of us favor the tactics of aggression is because they work! Bullies don't
understand civility or reason, and they don't respect talk. They respect the only
thing they understand, and that's force. If the bully gets a bloody nose every
time he tries to take your lunch money, he moves to a target that won't bloody
his nose. This is self-evident!
Comment by Lane Russell | July 25, 2006
What anti-semites do in questioning the "proportionality" of Israel's response to terror is what the liberal retard-encia due to American values of Faith, Family, and Country. The Left wants sodomy, surrender, and submission to their new Pantheon of liberal academes like Pete Singer, the Ivy League Idiot. God help us all!
Comment by Joseph | July 26, 2006
Mr. Leland, you can't possibly be serious. This is the most shoddy opinion piece I've seen on this site. Anyone can turn on a TV at any time and hear the phrases, "disproportionate response" and "land for peace" being uttered by newsreaders on every network. And we all know what unbiased, intellectual heavyweights Katie Couric and her peers are.
Worst of all is your complete denial or indifference to recent history. You windmill jousters claimed that if Israel would just pull out of the occupied territories, peace would gain a strong foothold. We realists knew it would make Israel appear weak and embolden the Palestinians. Indeed the missles began flying at Israel before the last settler was uprooted.
From Iran to Lebanon the mantra remains unchanged, "destroy Israel, kill the Jews." When will irrational eggheads such as you finally realize they mean it.
Comment by R. B | July 27, 2006
The authentic conservative position (and Christian position) is neither to support Israel nor the Muslims. Both are terrorists.
As Russell Kirk said, we have no business in the Middle East. Neoconservatives have "mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."
Comment by John | July 27, 2006
The Wilsonian conversion of the Middle East to Democracy is naive and undesirable. As Kirk said, we should follow Aristotle and realize that different forms of government are better suited for different cultures.
Comment by John | July 27, 2006
Hezbullah is not willing to negotiate. Neither is Hamas. Israel tried land for peace and they refused. Your article is 10 years out of date. They tried your approach and it didn't work. Now what?
It might be pointed out that Israel has three borders, North, South, and West. It tried the land for peace deal on the north and soutyh borders. Those are the two borders where is has problems. The western border, where it has never tried land for peace, is not a war zone.
Comment by Yaakov Watkins | July 28, 2006
We wrestle with whether our actions (and those of our allies) against terrorists are just.
What is it that makes us doubt our own righteousness in a fight where the line between
good and evil is so clearly defined? Why do certain people among us seem to choose the
wrong side of every issue in order to be in opposition to the traditional (conservative),
pro-American view? Or in this case, the pro-American-ally view?
This struggle within is caused by a constant supply of anti-conservative "information"
from the information supply industry - the news media - which is without question not only
non-objective, but agenda-driven, and whose personnel are liberal in huge majority.
The result in a culture which gets most of its "knowledge" of the world from such polluted sources
is erroneous beliefs and misunderstandings regarding other peoples and their intentions.
It's called political correctness, and it distorts reason and clouds conscience.
We should trust our hearts and our logic, even when they tell us the right thing to do is going
to be ugly and painful in the short term. We must have the courage to attack and eradicate evil
whenever and wherever we see it, ignoring those who try to convince us that we don't see it.
Why be so aggressive? Simply this: If we do not destroy evil -and that means nothing less than
hunting and killing all men who vow to destroy us and our friends - then it will destroy us and
everything and everyone we hold dear. Wrestle with that.
Comment by D.D. | July 29, 2006
This artical is crap, not even worth a responce…….
Comment by Ricky Lennon | July 29, 2006
I. E. Get a life! You must walk in a dream world void of reality! Sure we all have a right to express our views but it is absolutely absurd to think Israel will win peace in the region by giving up more land that rightfully belongs to them. Where have you been in the last few years? Are you not aware that this has already been done with no lasting results? The enemy of Israel, and I hate to add America, has a mind set on total destruction of the Jews and now we have become their targets of hatred. You cannot negotiate an enemy to death! You have to kill all of them before they kill all of us! Get it? That's the only way to have a lasting peace! Let's wake up to reality and quit dreaming!
Comment by Dan Spoonhour | July 31, 2006