D

droid

Guest
Ah - so its his 'conclusion' - not his 'main thrust'.The two are often very different things.

Regardless, I ask again:

When someone starts parroting the PR of the IDF and presenting it as a 'miltary analysis', how seriously can you expect him to be taken?
 

vimothy

yurp
Ah - so its his 'conclusion' - not his 'main thrust'.The two are often very different things.

Have a word droid, if you can do that without endless semantic nit-picking. What is Cordesman's analysis of Israeli strategy in the Gaza War? His analysis is that it is damaging to US interests in the ME, to moderate Arab regimes and to future chances of peace. (But then, I'm sure you knew that, having skimmed it far enough to conclude that you didn't need to read it). Furthermore, and significantly, this is the assessment of Anthony Cordesman, respected establishment analyst and former advisor to John McCain.

Regardless, I ask again:

An excellent point. On that basis, I say disregard Cordesman's strategic analysis and come to the opposite conclusion. I mean, if someone who "starts parroting the PR of the IDF" doesn't believe it, it must be true -- right? Therefore Israeli strategy is on the whole not unsustainable, damaging to US interest, Arab moderates or the prospect of a peaceful settlement. Cordesman is after all a Zionist wing-nut and so can safely be ignored. Thank you and good night.
 
D

droid

Guest
Furthermore, and significantly, this is the assessment of Anthony Cordesman, respected establishment analyst and former advisor to John McCain.

Thank you and good night.

LOL Very good. Always leave em laughing...
 

vimothy

yurp
What? It is the fact that this (harsh) analysis is written not by Finkelstein or Chomsky but by Cordesman that is signifi... Ah, I give up.
 
D

droid

Guest
Thats not the funny thing here. Its the fact that you seem to think that being a:

'respected (US) establishment analyst and former advisor to John McCain.'

Somehow confers hm with some kind of credibility on Israel/Palestine, when the opposite is almost certainly true.

Also - you say:

An excellent point. On that basis, I say disregard Cordesman's strategic analysis and come to the opposite conclusion. I mean, if someone who "starts parroting the PR of the IDF" doesn't believe it, it must be true -- right?

Are you claiming that he 'doesnt believe' the IDF's PR? Even if you ignore all the examples Finkelstein points out, the summary of the document itself indicates that this is not the case. Im sure you can provide countless examples of him expressing skepticism of IDF claims though.

The report draws heavily on briefings given in Israeli during and immediately after the fighting which were made possible by a visit sponsored by Project Interchange, day-to-day reporting issued by the Israeli Defense Spokesman, and interviews with Arab officials and experts before and after the conflict. It examines the war in terms of the fighting, what it says about the changes in Israeli tactics and capabilities and the broader lessons it may provide for asymmetric warfare, and the strategic and grand strategic outcome of the fighting.

The report analyzes Arab views and reactions, but it should be stressed that Hamas has not provided more than minimal details on its view of the fighting, other than ideological and propaganda statements (oh the irony!! - d). Any military report has to be written largely from an Israeli perspective, although the impact of the fighting and its strategic outcome can be evaluated from a much broader perspective.

And these assertions should give any objective reader pause, and demonstrate that the framing and context of the document are deeply flawed:

The analysis reveals impressive improvements in the readiness and capability of the Israeli Defense Forces since the fighting against the Hezbollah in 2006. It also indicates that Israel did not violate the laws of war. It did deliberately use decisive force to enhance regional deterrence and demonstrate that it had restored its military edge. These, however, are legitimate military objectives in spite of their very real humanitarian costs.

Say what you like about Chomsky and Finkelstein, but their objectivity is not compromised by being paid a wage by a defence 'establishment' which consistently supports Israel, nor are they sent on special briefing missions to Israel by one of the biggest pro-Israel organisations in the US.

I can understand why you would defend someone who regurgitates Israeli propaganda though, seeing as that's what youve been doing for much of this thread... :p What I dont get is why you recommended that SSI report...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vimothy

yurp
And do you disagree with Cordesman's analysis, namely that Israeli strategy is harmful to US interests, Arab moderates and to the prospects of peace in the region? Of course you don't. What is interesting is not that I think Cordesman being an advisor to McCain makes him an expert on the ME (a straw man in any case and not something I have claimed), but that the former advisor of John McCain is forwarding an analysis of Israeli strategy that one would expect to be anathema to the US establishment – something that it shares with the SSI study.

I find it hard to believe that this is so esoteric a point that it needs reiterating, but just in case, I'll just quote Cordesman again, from an earlier article on the Gaza War:

The growing human tragedy in Gaza is steadily raising more serious questions as to whether the kind of tactical gains that Israel now reports are worth the suffering involved.... This raises a question that every Israeli and its supporters now needs to ask. What is the strategic purpose behind the present fighting? After two weeks of combat Olmert, Livni, and Barak have still not said a word that indicates that Israel will gain strategic or grand strategic benefits, or tactical benefits much larger than the gains it made from selectively striking key Hamas facilities early in the war. In fact, their silence raises haunting questions about whether they will repeat the same massive failures made by Israel’s top political leadership during the Israeli-Hezbollah War in 2006. Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal or at least one it can credibly achieve? Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel’s actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process?

To blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes. To paraphrase a comment about the British government’s management of the British Army in World War I, lions seem to be led by donkeys. If Israel has a credible ceasefire plan that could really secure Gaza, it is not apparent. If Israel has a plan that could credibly destroy and replace Hamas, it is not apparent. If Israel has any plan to help the Gazans and move them back towards peace, it is not apparent. If Israel has any plan to use US or other friendly influence productively, it not apparent.

As we have seen all too clearly from US mistakes, any leader can take a tough stand and claim that tactical gains are a meaningful victory. If this is all that Olmert, Livni, and Barak have for an answer, then they have disgraced themselves and damaged their country and their friends. If there is more, it is time to make such goals public and demonstrate how they can be achieved. The question is not whether the IDF learned the tactical lessons of the fighting in 2006. It is whether Israel's top political leadership has even minimal competence to lead them.

What I dont get is why you recommended that SSI report...
Given your ceaseless misreading of my posts, that, in itself, is probably not so surprising.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
Eyal Weizman on "lawfare" in Gaza:

These legal aftershocks of the attack on Gaza expose a paradox: the attack was not only one of the most violent and destructive of Israel's wars on the Palestinian people, but also the one in which Israeli experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) - the area of the law that regulates the conduct of war - were most closely involved.

Israeli military lawyers claim that the extensive harm to the civilian population is not, in and of itself, proof of violations of the laws of war; they would also like to think that contemporary Israeli military operations and the mechanisms of the occupation are legal institutions in the sense that they are shaped by IHL.

IHL is a restrictive legal regime. It limits who can be attacked in war and how. Its function is to reduce rather than to eradicate suffering. Has the law, in the case of this attack on Gaza, contributed to the proliferation of violence rather than to its containment?

Is it possible that the attack on Gaza was not restrained by an extensive use of IHL - but rather, that a certain interpretation and application of this law have enabled, not only the justification of atrocities, but crucially, the affliction of otherwise inconceivable levels of destruction? Has the chaos, death and destruction been perpetrated with the full force of the law? If this is so, should those who oppose Israeli violence use the language of international law...?
 
D

droid

Guest
0,,6545953,00.jpg


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25233731-663,00.html
 
D

droid

Guest
I see. So your saying that the IDF has the same moral standards as Hamas.

Interesting...

And yes, I am missing 2/3 of the story. there are in fact, 3 T-shirts.

One depicts a child in the cross-hairs of a rifle with the slogan, "The smaller they are, the harder it is," said one of T-shirts. Another shows a pregnant woman in the cross-hairs and the words "1 Shot 2 Kills". Others depict a soldier blowing up a mosque and Palestinian women weeping over a gravestone.

Thanks for pointing that out.
 

vimothy

yurp
Er, there are a lot more than three t-shirts. But I was talking about the rogue IDF rabbis declaring holy war in Gaza, and the stories that have come out of the preparatory course run by Danny Zamir. Keep up, droid.
 
D

droid

Guest
Sorry Vim, the 'rogue' rabbis are old news. I foolishly assumed you were talking about something relevant.
 

vimothy

yurp
WaPo:

JERUSALEM, March 20 -- A soldier involved in Israel's recent military offensive in the Gaza Strip said in published reports Friday that the military's rabbinical staff distributed material characterizing the operation as a religious mission to "get rid of the gentiles who disturb us from conquering the holy land."
 

vimothy

yurp
Oh right, so a month is old news but not the shock-horror pope-shits-in-woods revelation that grunts are tactless and have black senses of humour.

And how are the accusations surrounding Zamir and Aviner, and the secular vs religious debate within the IDF not relevant?
 
D

droid

Guest
Oh dear god.

First of all, you're not too good at maths are you? That story broke on Feb 2nd, which makes it almost 2 months old. Also, rabbinical justification and encouragement for Israeli war crimes is a very old story indeed - it stretches back decades.

Secondly, the revelation is not that 'grunts are tactless and have black senses of humour' (strange that you see this a joke when it's clear that its pretty close to operational procedure), but rather that these shirts were worn by soldiers during their 'graduation', would've been seen by their commanders and therefore suggests that there was implicit approval or indifference to their sentiments in the IDF - though they have now of course condemned them as its become public.

Thirdly. when I said relevant, I meant relevant to the T-shirt story, which was implied by your comment that I only had '1/3 of the story'. I assumed you were referring to the story in question i.e. that the story was fake, that the shirts had been photoshopped etc...
 

vimothy

yurp
Of course I'm shit at maths (3=7). I believe I've mentioned this already (I'm also short-sighted and a light-weight). Of course, it doesn't make studying part time for a degree in it particularly easy. We all have our crosses to bear...

I just thought it was strange that you didn't mention the Zamir or the Aviner stories, since you normally never miss an opportunity. But I guess, like you say, the IDF have been waging holy war against the Palestinians for decades, so there's no point in mentioning Aviner. Or Zamir, for that matter. I mean, the slogans on the t-shirts have been SOP for years too, obviously, but it makes a for a more arresting image than a picture of a rabbi or some lefty IDF trooper waffling on about who knows what.

And it's certainly true that IDF soldiers graduate in t-shirts covered in slogans about killing Palestinians. That doesn't sound implausible. Why would soldiers be expected to graduate in uniform? It makes a lot more sense to imagine them lining up in (the three?) t-shirts for their graduation ceremony with their supervisors approval (and proud parents looking on), than having any kind of generic ceremony in uniform and making t-shirts themselves to celebrate it. Oh yes. After all, this is the IDF we're talking about.
 

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
I am not sure I understand this dispute.

It is surely no secret that many people on the Right in Israel have extremist and chauvinist views in regards to Palestine and Palestinians. And some of these people are in the IDF. And the IDF kills many civilians in the course of pursuing their aims...

The more interesting question is surely whether any of this is likely to change in the near future - and on this score it has to be interesting that someone like Cordesman (a fully-fledged member of a hawkish American military establishment - i.e. not a peacenik) is openly calling Israel's strategy into question...
 
Top