geirmund

The Norwegian Chief of Defence describes the Israel force in the war in Gaza as “military might decoupled from its political purpose”. He thinks there are three reasons for this:

“First of all, the use of force will not achieve the rationale for the war, which is to stop Hamas firing rockets against civilian Israeli targets. Secondly, it will cause significant material and human destruction that will radicalise new groups of Palestinians as well as the population in other Arab states, which is not in Israel’s interest. Thirdly, Israel is wasting more and more of her sympathy and reputation around the world, which again is not in Israel’s long-term strategic interest.”

Diesen states that his points of view have a strict military orientation: “Questions of moral and justice in the Middle East is not for me.” When asked about his personal opinion, he says “It is not my job to put forward views on questions of value. My opinion in this field is not more qualified than anyone else’s.”

No correlation

Diesen says he is concerned with the correlation between military and political goals.

“Israel is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, and the degree to which she succeeds, if at all, is a strategic cost for a marginal and ephemeral tactical advantage. The country is to a great extent behaving exactly like Hamas would want them to; Israel increases the support for Hamas in the Palestinian regions, weakens their own reputation in the rest of the world and contributes to a long-term development that will reduce the country’s chances for a solution in the Middle East that is beneficial to them.”

Diesen believes that Hamas’ conduct on the other hand, is cynically rational, similar to the Taliban in Afghanistan. “They are comfortable with the suffering they have brought on their own people, as long as it serves long-term strategic goals. It is a strategy that is as effective as it is unsentimental.”

Surgical war

He thinks that Israel should to a larger degree have accepted the consequence of Hamas operating like a classic guerilla organisation and have countered the rocket attacks with “other and more surgical methods than even the most precise aerial bombs and missiles.”

“What we’re talking about are intelligence-driven operations by special forces, with individual targeting and liquidation of extremists, localisation and destruction of rockets where they are produced and prepared, and so on. In other words, the use of a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer.”

Diesen wants a clear and holistic Israeli strategy that would contribute to the “marginalisation of extremist Palestinians by making it advantageous to take a more moderate approach” on the Palestinian side.

“Currently, Israel’s strategy is characterised by the use of only a stick – and no carrot.”

When pressed about his belief that Israel’s strategy is irrational by having his assumption highlighted: that Israel’s political goal is a moderate Palestinian counterpart and a two-state solution, Diesen agrees. “I can’t deny the possibility that Israel has given up on reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. In that respect, I would have to agree that her strategy can be seen to be rational.”

“If so, it reminds me of strategies akin to those when castles were under siege in the Middle Ages, where life goes on within the walls, with sufficient supplies to survive indefinitely. Then, occasionally, battles are fought to secure peace, before withdrawing back to the castle. It is possible to claim this is rational, but only on one condition: that the US will support Israel regardless.”

—

[This post is a translation of Israel forspiller sitt omdømme that appeared on aftenposten.no 12 january 2009.]