I have been relying from the start on a mainstream opinion from the start of the war that Israel can only sustain ground operations at their current intensity for about three months. The reason for that is that Israel has mobilized so many reserves that everything else has largely been placed on hold -- not something that can be sustained for long. That was why I was skeptical of another item in the rumor -- that the reserves would be called back into service to fight Hezbollah. That seemed like sheer madness. Hamas has been tough enough. Hezbollah is a whole lot stronger.
Assuming that what is actually happening is that the ground war is moving into a less intense phase, with reserves rotating in and out, what would I say about that? It is potentially encouraging -- but only potentially. Israel can only sustain this level of intensity in the ground war for so long. But there is no real limit on how long they can keep flattening Gaza into a parking lot. And if you thing Netanyahu wouldn't resort to such a measure -- well, think again. And that is to say nothing of starvation and disease. Scaling back the war is not enough. We need to scale up relief supplies.
I asked before what options Israel realistically had, and maybe it is time to start answering my own question.
So first and foremost, to anyone who says "From river to sea," it is not a realistic option for Israel to respond to a vicious attack by suddenly coming to the realization that it has no right to exist, disbanding itself, and relocating all 9 million inhabitants somewhere else. Even if you thing that is what Israel should do, it is wholly unrealistic to expect.
Others may say that that is not what they mean by "river to sea," they just want Israel to tear down the wall and allow free ingress and egress. Well, apparently this is a difficult concept for some people, but when people confined behind a wall break out and go on a mad rampage of gunning people down at a concert, rape, throwing grenades into shelters where people hide, burning people alive, etc., that is most unlikely to make people want to tear down the wall and allow free ingress and egress.
Then there are people who say yes, Israel was justified in going to war, but only against Hamas, not against the larger population. Except that when Hamas intertwines itself with the general population, builds headquarters in schools and hospitals, and goes out of its way to maximize civilian casualties to stoke outrage against Israel, saying to go to war with Hamas only is not only unrealistic, it is simply not possible. It amounts to telling Israel to shrug off the attack because any counter attack would harm the wider population, which is also not realistic.
At the same time, I am not one of those people who excuses Israel's worst destruction by saying it was all Hamas's fault for hiding behind civilians, so Israel has no further obligations and Palestinians should be grateful for any step, however minor, to limit civilian casualties.
So what do I suggest?
Limit the war to one part of the strip at a time. If you say that an area is a safe haven, treat it as a safe haven. If there is target in an otherwise safe haven that absolutely has to be hit, modern warfare has low-yield, extremely accurate drones and missiles. No, they are not perfect, but they should certainly be able to do a better job than Israel has done so far.
Give more warning before an attack (either bombing or urban warfare) and more opportunities to leave. The six hour humanitarian pauses were a good first step. Do more. By my understanding, most of the population of Mosul was able to flee before the final battle. Take that as a model. Yes, I recognize this gives Hamas fighters the chance to slip disguised among the general population. I have no objection to detaining fighting age men to determine if they are Hamas.
Hamas made their military headquarters in hospitals. By the laws of war, it is permitted to attack the hospitals -- but only after giving patients and staff the chance to evacuate. That means providing the means to evacuate, including for people too frail to flee on their own. Medivac helicopters come to mind. If that is not possible, at least ambulances with life support systems. Same provision about temporarily detaining suspect Hamas fighters.
And send in a lot more relief supplies. Gaza has three openings, one through Egypt and the other two through Israel. I see no reason whatever why relief supplies can't enter through Israel. That should have been allowed from the start, and certainly now. Overseas relief is an option. If Gaza lacks facilities for large-scale shipments, then do it on a smaller scale. Allow humanitarian pauses for relief to get in. And relief is going to have to mean more than food, fuel and medical supplies. It is the middle of winter. There will have to be tents, blankets, winter clothes, etc.
There was no excuse for delay before. There is no excuse not to change course now. I certainly look forward to seeing ground operations scaled down, as they inevitably must be. But it does little good unless aerial bombardment also scales back and more relief supplies come in.
No comments:
Post a Comment