RSS
What Would ‘Total Victory’ Mean in Gaza?
Hamas leader and Oct. 7 pogrom mastermind Yahya Sinwar addressing a rally in Gaza. Photo: Reuters/braheem Abu Mustafa
In recent years, the concept of decisive victory has eroded in Israel, but October 7 brought it forcefully back to the center of the national security process. There are four types of victory: tactical (the ability of the IDF to negate the enemy’s fighting ability); operational (the ability of the operative echelon to dismantle the fighting system facing it, which is currently happening in Gaza); military strategic (the ability to remove the military threat posed by the enemy for many years to come); and grand, or national, strategic (military victory leads to a fundamental change in the geopolitical situation, like a peace treaty or the establishment of a new regime).
It seems that the “total victory” that is spoken about in the context of Gaza is a strategic victory, which, given the right interfaces among military, civil, and economic moves, can bring about a relatively calm security situation for a decade or more.
Victory and decision are one and the same. Over the years, attempts have been made to distinguish between them: for example, victory is tactical and decision is operational or strategic; or victory is the result and decision is the process. The word “victory” is more popular than the more professional word “decision,” but the two concepts overlap. The words used depend on the user’s needs and image.
Decision/victory is one of four elements of Israeli national security doctrine (along with early warning, deterrence, and defense), but in fact, it is the most important, because it is the only optimal outcome of a military campaign. In the last three decades, ever since Operation Accountability against Hezbollah in 1993, the theoretical discussion about the use of force in military operations has gone awry: deterrence has become the desired outcome of a military campaign, while decision/victory has essentially disappeared as the primary goal.
This pushing aside of victory and centralization of deterrence was largely due to the limitations the State of Israel and the IDF placed on themselves regarding the use of force. The goals of these limitations were to reduce casualties among IDF soldiers and avoid ground maneuvering as much as possible; reduce civilian losses as a result of missiles and rockets hitting the home front; rely on active defense to postpone a long-term solution to challenges; reduce enemy collateral damage by avoiding war-fighting within dense urban spaces; reduce international criticism of Israel over its military conduct; resist holding onto territories that are not part of the State of Israel (a lesson from the long stay in Lebanon); avoid the need to provide a civil response to the needs of a local enemy population and to incur the cost in terms of resources and attention that such an effort would entail; and more.
The IDF’s use of the term “victory” in recent years has not been aimed at victory/decision, which will be defined below, but at a significant improvement of deterrence.
Israel’s belief that it can rely on intermittent deterrence operations (“rounds”) and does not need a victory/decision was painfully shattered on October 7, 2023. It took a severe blow to national security to force a review of the security doctrine, and a rediscovery of the concept of victory/decision. While it was quickly understood that victory/decision is required in the current campaign and probably also in future campaigns, the need arose to define what a “victory” is.
Tactical victory is the ability of IDF units to annihilate enemy forces in battle and control territory in a way that negates the enemy’s ability to continue to fight in that area in a military framework. This kind of victory is the achievement towards which fighting is directed. This is not about the killing of all opposing military soldiers or terrorist operatives, but about breaking their ability to fight as an organization or a combatant framework. A tactical victory is a military action that is a means to achieving broader goals. It does not mean that all threats to our forces or to the home front have disappeared from the area where victory was achieved.
Operational victory is the ability of the IDF’s operative echelon, usually the regional command operating in the operational arena or front, to dismantle the fighting system facing it. In a cluster of battles (usually many dozens are required) in which tactical victories and control of terrain are achieved, the combined fighting force of the IDF manages to render the enemy’s military system dysfunctional — i.e., unable to achieve military strategic goals or to deny the IDF’s ability to achieve such goals.
The operational victory achieved in the Six-Day War forced Egypt and Syria into a military reconstruction process that led them to embark on another war — with improved opening conditions for a military surprise — six years later. In the current war, operational victory does not mean the threat of guerrilla warfare and terrorism has been removed from the Gaza Strip, but that Hamas’ ability to cause damage, especially to the Israeli civilian home front, is declining dramatically. It can be said that in most areas of the Gaza Strip, the IDF has already achieved an operational victory. Its completion depends on Israel’s decision to fight in the limited remaining areas (Rafah, some of the center camps).
Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. This kind of victory is achieved by continuing military operations after the operational victory is achieved in order to weaken the enemy’s guerrilla warfare and terrorism capabilities until they either stop completely or are reduced to the scale of individual events. Strategic victory requires fundamental changes in the situation on the ground: the loss by guerrilla and terrorist operatives of the support of their population; isolation of the arena to prevent the insertion of new weapons and funding in a way that could allow guerrilla and terrorist operatives to recover; and a distancing of junior operatives or supporters from leading terrorist operatives that significantly impairs those leaders’ ability to command their juniors.
Such a change in the situation on the ground requires steps that go beyond military combat. These include rehabilitating the economic and civilian infrastructure for the population that is not engaged in terrorism; gaining the consent of neighboring countries and other partners to block weapons smuggling routes and money transfer channels into the territory; and the regulation of local government such that it can satisfy and develop the civilian and economic needs of the population. Such a strategic victory was achieved in 2004 at the end of the Second Intifada, and it resulted in relative quiet for about a decade.
The Grand Strategy victory, or victory on the level of national security strategy, is when a military victory leads to a fundamental change in the strategic posture of the State of Israel. This can stem from a desire among enemy leadership to fundamentally change its hostile attitude toward Israel and sign peace agreements with it that end the military conflict. Such a great victory — some would call it a mutual victory — was achieved with Egypt about five years after the Yom Kippur War.
Another type of grand victory is a situation in which the IDF controls territory following a military victory, and the failure of the previous regime in the war leads to regime change of a kind that creates fundamentally different national conduct. The classic historical examples of such a change are Germany and Japan after World War II. Israel won this kind of victory in the Golan Heights when it applied sovereignty over the territory in 1981.
Another form of grand victory stems from the complete dissolution of terrorist elements and the integration of their political movement into national mechanisms, as occurred in Malaya (part of Malaysia) in the 1950s, and with the Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka in 2009.
Grand victory cannot be achieved only by military means. It requires dialogue with local forces, deep and ongoing economic and civil rehabilitation, and permanent security control and policing mechanisms that create law and order and are acceptable to the population.
So what would “total victory” mean in the current Gaza conflict?
Tactical victory alone, as it is defined above, cannot lead to total victory.
Nor can an operational victory be “total.” While such a victory does mean a fundamental weakening of the enemy’s military capacity to do harm, it will, over time, be able to continue to fight guerrilla or terror warfare. The State of Israel strives to return all residents to the Gaza envelope region and create a situation of “absolute” security for them. This goal cannot be fulfilled solely by an operational victory.
Grand victory in Gaza would mean a years’ long process until the creation of fundamental change. During that period, the IDF would continue to eliminate guerrilla and terrorist operatives until they are completely subdued. A civilian authority would be established with an effective police force and the capacity for civil, economic, and law enforcement governance. The population would implement a basic approach of coexistence with Israel. Actions taken by the civilian authority toward this end, and its delicate coordination with Israel’s military activity, would receive international and regional support.
Such a process does not yet appear practical or feasible in Gaza, and even if it were, it is highly complex. It will be even more complex to connect Gaza to the civil and political processes in the West Bank, and ultimately to a political peace agreement that would lead to the establishment of a single Palestinian state entity in both areas simultaneously.
In light of all this, it seems that “total victory” in the Gaza conflict is most likely to come in the form of a strategic victory. This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.
In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.
Col. (Res.) Shai Shabtai is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and an expert in national security, strategic planning, and strategic communication. He is a strategist in the field of cyber security and a consultant to leading companies in Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post What Would ‘Total Victory’ Mean in Gaza? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Students of Columbia University Affiliate School Petition Administration to Hire Pro-Hamas Professor
The “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” at Columbia University, located in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on April 25, 2024. Photo: Reuters Connect
Students of the Union Theological Seminary (UTS), an affiliate school of Columbia University, are pushing the institution to hire an academic who was just terminated for defending the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
Dr. Mohamed Abdou, a visiting professor in modern Arab studies who defended Hamas after the terrorist group slaughtered over 1,200 people and kidnapped about 250 others during its Oct. 7 onslaught, was reportedly relieved of his duties at Columbia University as of Sunday. Following Abdou’s firing, UTS students circulated a petition calling on the seminary to extend the anti-Israel academic an offer of employment.
“We condemn Columbia University’s efforts to stifle any mobilization around [the Palestinian] cause and its repressive, anti-Palestinian victimization of Dr. Abdou,” the petition reads.
“We ask the UTS administration to hire Dr. Abdou for the 2024-2025 academic year,” the petition continues.
During a US congressional hearing on campus antisemitism in April, Columbia President Minouche Shafik promised lawmakers that the university would terminate Abdou at the conclusion of the school year, citing his repeated public endorsements of violence against Israel and endorsement of terrorist groups.
During a Jan. 5 interview with Revolutionary Left Radio, Abdou heaped praise on Hamas, referring to the terrorist organization as a “resistance” and dismissed criticism of the terrorist organization as “white supremacy.” In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, many pro-Palestinian groups have similarly defended Hamas a a “resistance” group and referred to the Oct. 7 atrocities as “self-defense.”
On Jan. 16. the Columbia Middle East Institute tapped Abdou to serve as lead instructor for a course on “Decolonial-Queerness & Abolition.” According to the course description, students analyzed “Euro-American informed modernity animated by (neo)liberal-Enlightenment values (free will/humanity, secularism, racial capitalism)” and “contemporary conceptualizations of family, kinship, and friendship in Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities within the context of settler-colonial societies (as the U.S./Canada) as well as in postcolonial nations and regions (as Southwest Asia, Africa, and the Middle East) that arguably never underwent adequate decolonization.”
Abdou faced intense criticism after a student recorded and circulated a course lecture in which he denounced Israel as a “settler colonial” entity that was inspired by American-style beliefs on private property, gender, and sexuality.
Following Shafik’s congressional testimony, Abdou claimed that the Columbia president “lied” about his firing and accused her of “misrepresenting” his opinions. He reiterated his support for Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are backed by Iran.
Abdou’s public support for terrorism has caused a firestorm of controversy with Columbia students and alumni, calling into question the university’s commitment to fostering a tolerant and safe environment for Jewish and Israeli students.
Abdou indicated gratitude for the petition on X/Twitter, saying that he is “indebted for this generous initiative.” He called on his supporters to sign and spread the petition “as far [and] as wide as possible.”
The post Students of Columbia University Affiliate School Petition Administration to Hire Pro-Hamas Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Australian War Memorials Vandalized With Pro-Hamas Graffiti
A war memorial in Canberra was vandalized by anti-Israel graffiti. Photo: Screenshot
Multiple memorials near the Australian War Memorial have been defaced with anti-Israel graffiti as Australian policymakers grapple with how to manage a rise in antisemitism that has continued unabated since the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Located on Anzac Parade — named in honor of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) — near downtown Canberra, vandals spray-painted pro-Hamas messages onto sites dedicated to those who died fighting for Australia in war. The messages included “Free Palestine,” “Free Gaza,” “Blood on your hands,” and “From the river to the sea” — the last of which is a popular slogan among anti-Israel activists calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The Australian National Korean War Memorial, Australian Vietnam Forces National Memorial, and the Australian Army National Memorial were all targeted over the weekend, as well as a wall between the memorials along Anzac Parade.
The incidents sparked outcry among Australian lawmakers and members of the Jewish community. In parliament, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the vandalism as “criminal” and called for the perpetrators to “get exposed publicly as well for who they are. We know what they are — they’re unworthy of having any respect and any leniency as a result of their own actions.”
The Australian Jewish Association wrote on X/Twitter in response to the desecration of the war memorials, “The anti-Israel movement is one of the ugliest Australia has ever seen.”
Condemnation of the vandalism by Australia’s politicians was not universal, however. On the far left, Green Party Senator Jordan Steele-John refused to support a motion from a fellow lawmaker condemning the memorials’ desecration. “War memorials are not politically neutral spaces,” Steele-John argued to the Senate.
Adam Brandt – the leader of the Green Party who days after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel condemned “Israel’s occupation — declined to comment on whether vandalism is a legitimate form of protest.
Over 17,000 ANZAC soldiers fought in Korea and 60,000 in Vietnam. ANZAC forces also participated in the Gallipoli campaign of World War I.
Australia’s Senate has faced growing calls to recognize a Palestinian state. Recently, Fatima Payman — a newly elected senator and member of the majority Labour party — was suspended by Albanese after voting against the Labour Party’s official position when she supported a Green Party motion for Palestinian statehood.
Meanwhile, the city council of Sydney — one of Australia’s largest and wealthiest cities — last week passed a motion calling on lawmakers to review its investment portfolio to determine whether it is linked to companies which provide arms and other services to the state of Israel. Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore, who is not formally affiliated with any political party, backed the idea to move toward adopting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.
Such political steps have come amid a surge in antisemitic incidents across Australia.
In just the first seven and a half weeks after the Oct. 7 atrocities, antisemitic activity in Australia increased by a staggering 591 percent, according to a tally of incidents by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
In one notorious episode in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas onslaught, hundreds of pro-Hamas protesters gathered outside the Sydney Opera House chanting “gas the Jews,” “f—k the Jews,” and other epithets.
The explosion of hate also included violence such as a brutal attack on a Jewish man in a park in Sydney in late October.
Pro-Hamas sentiment has also led to vandalism. Last month, the US consulate in Sydney was vandalized and defaced by an unidentified man carrying a sledgehammer who smashed the windows and graffitied inverted red triangles on the building. The inverted red triangle has become a common symbol at pro-Hamas rallies. The Palestinian terrorist group, which rules Gaza, has used inverted red triangles in its propaganda videos to indicate Israeli targets about to be attacked. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “the red triangle is now used to represent Hamas itself and glorify its use of violence.”
The post Australian War Memorials Vandalized With Pro-Hamas Graffiti first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Rabbi Tory Candidate Berated Outside British Mosque, Called a ‘Snake’ and ‘Child Killer’
Illustrative: A pro-Hamas march in London, United Kingdom, Feb. 17, 2024. Photo: Chrissa Giannakoudi via Reuters Connect
A rabbi and Tory parliamentary candidate in England was berated with accusations of “smiling like a snake” and supporting the murder of children during a recent visit to a mosque in Greater Manchester, which has become a hub of antisemitic activity since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel.
Rabbi Arnold Saunders, the Conservative candidate for the heavily Jewish seat of Bury South, was invited last week to Bilal Mosque, located in the town of Prestwich, by its elders. During his visit, however, a member of the mosque began aggressively shouting at the elderly rabbi, who uses a cane, according to video circulated on X /Twitter.
“You are a snake”
WATCH the threatening way Rabbi Arnie Saunders was treated when he was invited to the Bilal Mosque in Prestwich, Manchester in his role as the Conservative candidate for Bury South by the mosque elders. That he was allowed to be abused, intimidated and have his… pic.twitter.com/X4PZTsteLq
— NW Friends of Israel (@NorthWestFOI) June 30, 2024
In the video, the enraged worshiper can be seen demanding that Saunders “condemn the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] in the strongest terms” for its military campaign targeting Hamas in Gaza.
“Don’t come to the house of Allah and try to engage with us when we know that what when you’re in your own places you’re saying that it is good that they are killing children,” the man continued.
“He’s happy that children are dying. Ask him to go,” he told mosque officials. “We don’t want to engage with these people.”
Muslim worshipers berate Rabbi Arnold Saunders outside of a mosque in Greater Manchester, England. Photo: Screenshot
“You come here and smile like a snake,” the protestor screamed at the rabbi as he stood up to leave.
Saunders attempted multiple times to respond to the man’s accusations but was repeatedly cut off. According to the video, other members of the mosque watching the exchange did not attempt to defend the rabbi.
British Jewish organizations quickly condemned the abuse of Saunders.
“We are disgusted by the abusive treatment of Rabbi Arnold Saunders … the footage clearly shows the rabbi was being targeted in this fashion due to his religion,” the UK’s main Jewish organization, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said in a statement. “We urge all who care about the health of our democracy to call out this bigotry.”
The Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester & Region (JRC) similarly lambasted the treatment of Saunders.
“Rabbi Saunders is a much respected communal figure and we unequivocally condemn his treatment in this video. It is unquestionably antisemitic and we expect action to be taken,” the organization posted to social media. “The fact he has been attacked emphasizes how individuals are importing the tragic conflict taking place in Israel and Gaza onto the streets of the UK.”
North West Friends of Israel, an organization supporting Jews in the northwestern UK condemned the scene as well.
“That he was allowed to be abused, intimidated and have his personal space invaded is disgraceful and shocking,” the group said. “He must have feared for his safety. By contrast two of the mosque elders were recently invited to the Jewish Community of Manchester Bury South Hustings and treated with nothing but courtesy and respect.”
Saunders’ opponent for the British parliamentary seat in Bury South, Labour lawmaker Christian Wakeford, wished the rabbi his best. “Despite political disagreements, Rabbi Saunders and I have always had an excellent relationship and I hope he is OK following this incident.”
Recently, Manchester has evolved into somewhat of a hub for antisemitic and anti-Israel activity following the Hamas terrorist attacks of Oct. 7.
Earlier this year, two Israeli survivors of the Oct. 7 atrocities were detained and subjected to discrimination while being processed at Manchester Airport. According to the JRC, the two individuals, who were traveling to the UK to discuss narrowly escaping the Hamas onslaught, were singled out upon presenting their Israeli passports and explaining why they were there. British Border Force officers allegedly forced the Israelis to submit to two hours of “detention and interrogation,” as well as abusive comments.
More recently, a world map on the wall of Manchester’s Airport was removed by airport authorities after they were notified by the organization UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) that the Jewish state was crossed out and instead labeled “Palestine.”
“While we are very grateful to Manchester Airport for its swift action, we are concerned that people are unable to walk past a map that mentions ‘ISRAEL’ without deleting its name,” ULKFI said of the incident. “This shows an extremely worrying attitude to the world’s only Jewish state.”
The post Rabbi Tory Candidate Berated Outside British Mosque, Called a ‘Snake’ and ‘Child Killer’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.