Retired general's 'siege plan' for Gaza sparks debate - opinion

Together with a group called “The Reservist Commanders and Combat Soldiers Forum,” Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland recently came out with an initiative that has been labeled “The Military Generals Plan.” 

In essence, the plan suggests imposing a complete siege on the northern Gaza Strip until the surrender of the last Hamas combatant or their starvation to death. (It is not clear from the details how the last Hamas combatant will be determined). The title of the plan is “Humanitarian aid as a strategic lever for the return of the abductees and for the defeat of Hamas.”

This seemingly attractive title makes use of the “magic” words “strategic leverage,” even though it is devoid of any strategic thinking. The simplistic notion that power is the solution to every challenge is divorced from reality. 

For almost a year Israel has been muddling through an endless war in which the main motive is the use of force, even though it has become clear that the use of force alone is bringing about the death of the hostages without achieving any of the stipulated goals of the war. And now we are entering another war, this time with Hezbollah, again with more and more force and without any vision for a diplomatic solution. 

The Israeli public is hurting and too many are looking for revenge. This public is the audience that provides ratings for the television channels, which give it what it wants: a vast assortment of military officers of various ranks who only use one word – “force,” and as much of it as possible.

GIORA EILAND has chosen to advance a position whose main purpose is the use of military force against the civilian population in both the south and the north of Gaza in a manner contrary to international law and basic human values. Eiland has become the darling of the media, together with an increasing number of military officers and members of the right-wing “IDSF – Defense and Security Forum,” rambling on about the need for more war, more force, more hunger.

TV producers prefer those “security experts,” who may understand something about micro-tactics, but are completely ignorant of wider comprehensive strategies, than experts who can show the Israeli public a wider picture.

Moreover, one sector that rarely receives the studio spotlight is the diplomatic sector, even though when all is said and done, diplomacy is the only tool that can translate military power into political achievement.

Wars that are managed wisely and with a strategic purpose can create a basis for agreements, but it is diplomacy that turns military advantage into strategic success in the political arena. In Israel, diplomacy garners lower ratings than the lust for war, starvation, and the unhinged desire for “total victory,” which can never be achieved.

For an entire year, the State of Israel under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has been implementing a policy of using force, without any use of diplomacy, simply because any attempt at a non-militaristic solution could mean the end of Netanyahu’s coalition. 

Instead of understanding the famous truism coined by the military philosopher General Von Clausewitz – that war is only a part of a purposeful policy – Netanyahu preferred the approaches of Eiland and Smotrich, who believe that only military force lies at our disposal. Now, the same attitude is leading Israel’s actions in Lebanon, just force and more force. 

Indeed, there are many IDF officers who understand the futility of continuing the war but they hold no sway on the government leaders who are dependent on the extremist politicians. It is these politicians who seek to use the war to realize their messianic visions of recapturing the Gaza Strip and retaking control of the Palestinian Authority territories in the West Bank.

One year later, 101 hostages are still being by Hamas

ALMOST A YEAR after the outbreak of the war, 101 hostages are still being held captive by Hamas, and women and men in uniform are still being killed and injured in an endless and purposeless war with no clear exit strategy. The northern front with Lebanon is now becoming a full-scale war, which may well develop into a regional war.

In such a dire situation, the Israeli public must come to its senses. The media, which are by and large in favor of the continuation of the war, and Israeli society as a whole, must learn the lessons of the past, of the stalemate and bloodshed in Lebanon, and the American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Simplistic ideas that are disconnected from reality, such as “preventing humanitarian aid,” “killing,” and “occupying,” may be suitable for discourse in a country like Russia, which has no commitment to the values of liberal democracies, and has a right of veto in the UN Security Council that allows it to ignore international law.

Instead of exposing the public almost exclusively to those who believe that military force is the only solution – despite that in the age of asymmetric threats, there are no solely military solutions to the challenges of terrorism – it is crucial to create a more in-depth discourse, albeit less popular. Such discourse must be held not only with military officers but also with diplomats and statesmen, who are more aware of the necessity to translate achievements on the military front into strategic victories in the political arena.

As individuals, we are entitled to be angry and demand vengeance. However, serious leaders must act with a political strategy devoid of mere emotion and revenge. The voice of diplomacy, not only the language of power, must be heard more often in the Israeli discourse. Otherwise, we will continue drifting toward the abyss of eternal war, in which everyone loses.

The writer is J Street Israel’s executive director. He has served as an Israeli diplomat in Washington and Boston, and as a political adviser to the president of Israel.