Tactical retreat
Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mounted a major attack on his
arch rival PM Sharon last week regarding the latter's Disengagement Plan for
Gaza and Northern Samaria. Netanyahu, is hoping to become Sharon's
successor by appealing to the majority of right wing Likud members. Some
might call him opportunistic, but then aren't all politicians. Netanyahu,
although opposed to the Plan, has remained in Sharon's Government and has
admitted that Disengagement is a "done deal," and that it is supported by
the majority of Israelis. In other words he wants it both ways.
In this Plan of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Sharon adopted what was
considered to be a left wing policy, that was previously proposed by former
Labor PM Barak and Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna. So why did Sharon
adopt it? This is a mystery to many and is considered to be a traitorous
act by his former supporters in the Yesha (Yehuda-Shomron-Aza) settler
movement. Since Sharon is the very exemplar of a military man (he was
undoubtedly one of the greatest generals of the IDF) we can speculate on
this not only from a political but also from a military point of view.
There is little doubt that Sharon would not adopt any Plan that did not make
excellent military sense to an icon of Israeli power.
The political aspects of this policy have received most attention, because
the pressure from the US and EU for Israel to take some conciliatory action
towards the Palestinians was very great, but its military dimensions have
been neglected. What are these military aspects? As outlined by various
spokesmen they include, a) the need to reduce the length of the lines
whereby there is constant friction between the IDF and Palestinian armed
forces, b) the need to consolidate the IDF positions so that they are not
exposed all over the Gaza strip, and c) the need to remove Israeli settlers
from a potentially dangerous position where they have to be protected all
the time at great loss of men and cost to the Israeli state. The military
reaction to ameliorate this situation can be regarded as a tactical retreat
or an organized retreat, rather than a retreat under defeat. Of course,
this may not be the perception of Hamas or the terrorists, but their
perception does not truly matter, since their bravado will not win them any
battles. In a successful war campaign there is nothing wrong with a
tactical retreat, on the contrary. In many cases a tactical retreat
precedes a later stronger tactical attack, often in the form of a pincer
movement that traps an over-confident enemy.
Meanwhile the main opponents of the disengagement are the Israeli right wing
settlers, and today some of them blocked about 40 major intersections around
the country with burning tires and their bodies. They were attacked by
several motorists who objecting to sitting in traffic jams while they
demonstrated, and the police arrested several of them. This has happened
before and the demonstrators were released without charge. Now the police
may see that this is getting out of hand and may actually charge and
imprison some of them, if only to stop them continuing this policy.
Certainly it will gain them no supporters among "middle" Israelis.
arch rival PM Sharon last week regarding the latter's Disengagement Plan for
Gaza and Northern Samaria. Netanyahu, is hoping to become Sharon's
successor by appealing to the majority of right wing Likud members. Some
might call him opportunistic, but then aren't all politicians. Netanyahu,
although opposed to the Plan, has remained in Sharon's Government and has
admitted that Disengagement is a "done deal," and that it is supported by
the majority of Israelis. In other words he wants it both ways.
In this Plan of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, Sharon adopted what was
considered to be a left wing policy, that was previously proposed by former
Labor PM Barak and Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna. So why did Sharon
adopt it? This is a mystery to many and is considered to be a traitorous
act by his former supporters in the Yesha (Yehuda-Shomron-Aza) settler
movement. Since Sharon is the very exemplar of a military man (he was
undoubtedly one of the greatest generals of the IDF) we can speculate on
this not only from a political but also from a military point of view.
There is little doubt that Sharon would not adopt any Plan that did not make
excellent military sense to an icon of Israeli power.
The political aspects of this policy have received most attention, because
the pressure from the US and EU for Israel to take some conciliatory action
towards the Palestinians was very great, but its military dimensions have
been neglected. What are these military aspects? As outlined by various
spokesmen they include, a) the need to reduce the length of the lines
whereby there is constant friction between the IDF and Palestinian armed
forces, b) the need to consolidate the IDF positions so that they are not
exposed all over the Gaza strip, and c) the need to remove Israeli settlers
from a potentially dangerous position where they have to be protected all
the time at great loss of men and cost to the Israeli state. The military
reaction to ameliorate this situation can be regarded as a tactical retreat
or an organized retreat, rather than a retreat under defeat. Of course,
this may not be the perception of Hamas or the terrorists, but their
perception does not truly matter, since their bravado will not win them any
battles. In a successful war campaign there is nothing wrong with a
tactical retreat, on the contrary. In many cases a tactical retreat
precedes a later stronger tactical attack, often in the form of a pincer
movement that traps an over-confident enemy.
Meanwhile the main opponents of the disengagement are the Israeli right wing
settlers, and today some of them blocked about 40 major intersections around
the country with burning tires and their bodies. They were attacked by
several motorists who objecting to sitting in traffic jams while they
demonstrated, and the police arrested several of them. This has happened
before and the demonstrators were released without charge. Now the police
may see that this is getting out of hand and may actually charge and
imprison some of them, if only to stop them continuing this policy.
Certainly it will gain them no supporters among "middle" Israelis.
posted by Jack Cohen at 10:39 AM
1 Comments:
There is little doubt that Sharon would not adopt any Plan that did not make excellent military sense to an icon of Israeli power.
Really?
"Journalists Raviv Drucker of Channel Ten TV and Ofer Shelach of Yediot Acharonot newspaper appeared on Nissim Mishal's Channel Two television program last night and summarized the results of their research. The main findings:
* The evacuation plan was born because Sharon was sure that then-State Prosecutor Edna Arbel would indict him.
* The decisions on the disengagement plan were made by marginalizing the army people, and without the participation of the ministers and the Cabinet.
* Sharon proposed to one of the army's top generals that he be a "plant" and report to him on the goings-on in the General Staff.
See the original Hebrew video of the televised interview here.
Post a Comment
<< Home