On the fence I agree, it's a great idea, provided it does not lull the Israelis into a static Maginot line kind of position. In other words, it's vital to remain proactive on the Pal side, in terms of intelligence, patrols etc.

Kishke:

The strategic thinking behind this is the exact opposite of static defense. This calls for round the clock patrols on the ground, and in the skies, making liberal use of pilotless drones and satellites. The supposition being that Israel is engaged in a constant state of low intensity conflict and there are some people on the other side of the fence who need to be killed.

Thanks for the comment.

In a fine essay which appeared recently on his website titled 'What History Says About the Iraq War,' the Classical historian Victor Davis Hanson notes that wars usually start when the enemy believes a country is too weak militarily to defend itself.

Sharon understands this, and acted decisively to deter further violence and send a message to Islamists that their murderous activities would not go unpunished. Let's pray that his successor will show similar resolve.

I look forward to Part IV.

Yes, I'm aware that what's needed is a proactive presence on the other side of the wall. What I'm afraid of is what the wall might *become* over time. I'm concerned that at some point - when, or if, the Pals receive a state? - the wall will be transformed into a static defense line, which would be disastrous. It's all too easy to imagine a scenario in which the lefties - or the Europeans, or even the Americans - might say that now that a wall exists, Israel should remain on their side of it. Would Israel be able to resist these pressures? Not necessarily.

Tamara:

I'll llook up that essay. Hanson is a great military historian, a favorite of mine.

The Islamic facists know that Israel is miltarily stronger, hence they attack "soft targets," public spaces, busses, coffeee shops, attacking the old, the young, women, those who cannot fight, the grand strategy being to break down morale, and ultimately physically force Israel to exit, well, Israel.

With a Wall in place, Israel must go on the offensive even more vigorously, hunting down the terrorists in Gaza and killing them. And each time a rocket is fired into Israel, the Palis must be made to understand that because no Jews are left in Gaza as hostages, the gloves are off, and one rocket will be answered with ten.

Thanks so much for your comment.

Robert:
I am totally amazed at the amount of work it must have taken for you to write all of this. I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly (I'm printing out the Megilah, including reader comments, to read for Shabbos) and hope to be able to comment afterwards. I am not as well versed as you are in Israeli history/politics and could stand to learn more. Perhaps The Jewish Press should publish this in their paper - why keep this brilliance to yourself? :)

Have a good Shabbos!

Rachel:

I have been working on this series since, well, pretty much ever since I realized that Prime Minister Sharon really was serious about withdrawing from Gaza and huge portions of Judea and Samaria. I had to underfstand why. My office is stacked with military books and journals.

I should give up screenwriting and join the army. But I will only accept the rank of General.

Anyway, I'm not keeping my brillaince to myself, I'm sharing it with Seraphic Secret readers, oh and Seraphic University Students. Enrollment is growing every day.

Have a lovely and meaningful Shabbos.

It seems the question really is, what will happen now, without Sharon?
Seraphic U is quite a bargain. Free education and we even get to put our 2 cents in.
Thanks Robert, this continues to be a really great read.

Robert,

It is a war of attrition and a battle of wills. I agree with you about the goals of the enemy. See how easy it is to slip into the group mindthink and turn the enemy into less human targets by giving them some blanket name. That is a post for a different day.

But let us go back to the ideological differences. If we argue that the Palestinians have fostered a culture of death (I happen to think that this is largely accurate)in which martyrdom is celebrated as a goal that is deserving of praise then there is a real problem.

As long as they view suicide as being praiseworthy and something that brings great rewards both now and in the hereafter there is a tremendous problem.

The Russians method of handling Chechnya has not been soft. They have come down with a ironfist and have been brutal in their treatment but I am not sure that they have seen the results that they search for.

If Israel responded with the same force as Russia in Chechnya there would be such an outcry.

Yet, at the same time I do agree with you that there has to be a very clear response to terrorist activities. I agree that it has to be with great force. One could argue that many if not most wars have been won because the other side had been so severely punished that they could not continue to fight.

That brings me back to the question of a culture of death. Such a culture will not necessarily respond as easily to military punishment.

I suppose where I am going is here. This is going to require military and diplomatic solutions. Neither one can prevail by itself.

I could go on but I suspect that this rambling is a little longer than it should be.

Robert, amazing series. Amazing insight into your world, I envision you hunched over your desk, lamp trained upon a tome of war. Thanks for sharing with us. You are making the world inhabited by Israel come alive to me. One little thing stands out to me and reminds me that I become so angry with our government when I realize how very much aid we give out around the world that is used to line the pockets of very wealthy evil men. Surely I could expect better stewardship of my tax money.

I like the discussion of the turning point for Sharon. I'm also not sure of when it happened for him, but I do know when it happened for me:

Of course, I have always been a strong supporter of Israel. But in every situation starting with the war in Lebanon, I have recognized how many arguments against Israel's position at any given time had some merit. I never bought into hatred, I just saw how Israel had strategically and/or politically screwed up from time to time.

Then came "Intifada 2" in 2000. As I had for almost 20 years prior, I began by supporting Israel, but thinking about how Israel could have avoided this problem too. Then a funny thing happened, I couldn't think of anything logical or illogical that Israel could have done. Nothing. Sharon walking up to the Temple Mount causing an unending series of suicide killings? Didn't make sense even to an overly fair-minded/frequent critic of Israel like me. Dancing in the streets on 9/11?... same thing. The simple fact is no sane leader would have walked away from Clinton and Barak's offer at Camp David in 2000 like Arafat did. I always knew he was sneaky at best and a killer at worst, but now it had to be clear to everyone that he was not interested in any progress whatsoever. And despite the "us vs. them" mentality we supporters of Israel often succumb to, I think just about every sane person following the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict came to the same conclusion. People like Thomas Friedman, who often slams Israel, started pointing this out very forcibly in his NY Times columns. The only people who still stood hard against Israel were the lunatics and the Jew-haters... and now we all know a little bit better who they are.

I'd like to think that the fall of 2000 was Sharon's epiphany too. I guess we'll never know. But for this "liberal hawk," I know it was mine.

"Sharon's plans for the security wall are eerily reminicent of his finest battles."

Robert,

I have to respectfully disagree. After rejecting the idea of a fence, Sharon announced that Israel would construct a fence. The route was to include more than 40 percent of Judea and Samaria, including the Jordan Valley.

Sharon did not consult the Bush Administration, which initially strongly rejected the fence. He also did not sufficiently take into account that the Supreme Court of Israel would find major problems with the planned fence route, and that Israel would face international censure over the fence.

As a result, the fence will only include 6 percent of Judea and Samaria. Indeed, it will include none of Samaria - only a secondary fence will protect even the Western Samaria settlements of Ariel, Kedumim and Karnei Shomron. The Jordan Valley is outside the fence, as is half of Gush Etzion. Even the areas near Ben Gurion Airport aren't within the fence.

To me, the fence is very similar to the Lebanon War, Sharon's biggest military failure. The plans were good on paper, but there was no thinking as to what could be done if things sometimes went awry.

On a political level, the fence has essentially ceded, unilaterally, 94 percent of Judea and Samaria.

Jack:

Thanks for your comment. I will address these issues, in depth, in Parts IV & V, which will deal respectively with The War on Terrorism, and then Conventional Warfare.

As for the Russians in Chechnya, they are about as smart and sucsessfull there as they were in Afghanistan. No responsible counter-terrorist force looks to the Russians as a model for how to properly conduct low intensity warfare. Least of all the IDF.

Reagarding this Pansurgency stuff, a sloppy definition designed to deceive the reader.

these global insurgents arent interested in overthrowing values & cultures. Thats propganda BS and is completely at odds with the publicly declared goals of the real panglobal terrorists operating today. Osama himself said the goal of their campaign is to force the west to stop interefering with middle eastern governments and to stop the west from stripping the profits from oil sales. These are secular goals that are political and economic in nature and they have nothing to do with culture or religion

Joe:

Thanks so much for your respectful disagreement. I should have written: "Sharon's plans for the security wall, if properly implemented, would be eerily reminicent of his finest battles."

My mistake.

I'm not sure what your point is about Sharon consulting with the Bush administration regarding the wall. However, their initial rejection of the barrier has fallen away, and you know what, this is an internal security matter of such importance that the Americans are loathe to tell Israel what they can and cannot do, especially now that the Pals have elected terrorists as their government.

Besides, the Pentagon is, as always, watching what Israel does. For Israel is always several steps ahead of America in the GWOT, hence the wall and the security measures that are being invented, are living laboratories that can only benefit America and American citizens.

The Israeli Supreme Court. Ugh, what can be said? Sharon knew, as does everyone who is honest, that excepting Bolshevik Russia, it is the most left wing court in the solar system. Nevertheless, Sharon had to plow ahead--they do not call him "Bulldozer" for nothing--and hope that somehow, someway, a majority of the wall would get built as envisioned.

The wall will continue to have many configurations. I have seen drawings where it extends into the Jordan Valley.

One such map can be found in S.L. Gordon's, "Israel Against Terror, A National Assesment," (Hebrew only,) 2002, pp 146-7.

Joe, I'm sure you will agree that the security fence around Gaza works pretty well in terms of containing terrorist incursions, right?

Okay, so ideology aside, and that's what this whole series is about-- and believe me, it's taking a toll on me--okay, so ideology aside:

What configuration of the wall can be built will satisfy Israel's grand defensive and offensive strategy?

Or: does the wall so offend core religious and ideological beliefs that no plan exists that will ever satisfy?

Joe, have a lovely and meaningful Shabbos.

Randi:

Free tuition, huh? A Seraphic University invoice is in the mail. We take credit cards.

What, a babke doesn't suffice? (Remember, I can shoot a gun...thanks to, oh yeah...YOU!)

Robert, thanks for this series. I've been wondering for months why the heck Israel pulled the settlements, and now I get it. But apparently not all the settlements were evacuated? Are some going to be enclosed by this fence?

Kiwi:

Remember, this is my military theory. And yes, Jewish towns will be within the barrier. Though others will not. The final route of the secirity wall has still not been finally determined, and even when it is, there will not doubt, be "rewrites" based on further military realities.

Randi:

Maybe a few more chocolate Babkes will be accepted as tuition. We at Sraphic U are easy to bribe.

Wrong again, sir. Most of the security fence is now what we in Israel call a "dumb wall". No fancy cameras, no barbed wire on top. Where there are cameras it is a matter of a rock thrown with accurate aim to disable it.

If it is completed as planned now, it will be much too long for IDF troops to properly patrol. Therefore there will be many places where the terrorists can, and will, tunnel under.

The wall will not address two other security problems - suicide bombers who will sneak in using Israeli taxis, and the Kassam rockets launched from behind it. Kassam rockets now launched from the Gaza strip threaten both the electrical power plant and the chemical plant in the Ashkelon industrial zone.

Sharon's disengagement plan was a disaster on all fronts, and it certainly hasn't improved Israel's security.

Westbankmama:

If most of the wall is dumb, then it's useless and why build it? I agree. As for patrolling the wall, if it's properly built, and there are other security measures in place--which I will write about--then IDF troops will not have to patrol every inch of the wall.

Kassam rocketrs are there, wall or no wall right? So these have to be dealt with separately.

I don't know if the disengagement is a disaster yet. I think it's too early to judge. It certanly has been disastrous for relations between Jews, and this saddens me more than anything.

I would like to take a moment to make a few points.

I believe one of the objectives of the series, wonderfully written I would like to add, is to examine this issue from a dispassionate point of view.

Of course, anything dealing with Israel, a place we all love, is extremely hard to discuss without high emotion.

However, I believe we better understand the difficult issues if we can somehow divorce ourselves from the emotions that invariably arise when this subject is broached.

Robert,

You're right that in principle the U.S. no longer opposes the fence. However, it and the Israeli Supreme Court have had virtual veto power over the route, which is why the fence doesn't even cover much of Gush Etzion, or any of Samaria.

I agree that a fence could be constructed that would provide Israel with more secure borders, but I don't think this fence accomplishes that. The original route probably would have.

Joe:

As I keep repeating, this series is an attempt to project into the military reasons for the Gaza withdrawal and the eventual withdrawals from parts of Judea and Samaria. I firmly believe that Sharon made these decisions for strategic and tactical reasons. I want to undertsand why. Being angry is not a satisying emotion for me.

I prefer clarity.

That said, if the security wall does not cover the proper route and is just a "dumb wall" without the proper surveillance equipment, well then, it's a stupid exercise and militarily might even be a step backward, for it will give a false sense of security. And that is extremely dangerous.

Robert - You are right that I am angry, and I will tell you why. I think your posts on this subject are the blog equivalent of "maares ayin". Because you are pro-Israel, and religious, people take what you say seriously, so that the innaccuracies and half-truths are more dangerous coming from you than someone else.

Arik Sharon did not spell out why he proposed the disengagement plan. All of the reasons that you and others give for his decision to do this are pure speculation, and are the product of the wish to hold on to the "myth" of Sharon rather than to see the man he really was.

Yes, he was a war hero, and a brilliant tactician. But he was also a ruthless and cunning politician who changed political parties five times, and was under grave suspicion of corrupt fundraising for which his son has now been sentenced to nine months in jail.

Other, more qualified people, like former Chief of Staff Moshe Ayalon, questioned Sharon's decisions and warned that they were dangerous for Israel's security. For this he was dismissed from his position prematurely - which should also shed some light on Sharon's motivations.

WestBankMama:

As a regular reader of this blog, I really object to your characterization that these posts amount to "maares ayin".

If you disagree, that is fine, and I respect your point of view.

However, you lower yourself and your arguments when you resort to ad hominem attacks.

Westbankmama:

I have said again and again that these blogs are pure speculation. I am trying to understand what Sharon did, and by the way, what the government is likely to do in the next few months.

As to the charges of corruption brought against Sharon, if you were to disqulify every politician in Israel who has been accused of financial corruption from serving, well, the ranks would be pretty thin. As for changing parties. Again, Israeli politicians chnage parties pretty regularly. They are all opportunists. That's the definition of a politician.

I have on purpose not quoted "security experts" in this series for I have quickly discovered that for every ex-general who holds one position, I can find another ex-general who holds the exact opposite opinion. They are like dueling Rebbeim. It's an endless security debate. In the end, I quoted no one but my common sense.

Which has its own problems, I'm the first to admit.

Interpolation:

You know, Westbankmama, I feel I must add this: ad-hominem attacks on Sharon, or on anyone does not enhance you or your position. In fact, it forces me into the uncomfortable position of being attacked by my own and then having to try and defend those who are attacking me--out of loyalty to Torah and the Land.

Perhaps misplaced.

Head in hands. Shudder.

In short, I believe you have done yourself and our ideology a terrible disservice on this blog. Instead of bringing symathetic people to your side you have, I'm afraid, pushed them away.

Head in hands.

Much bigger shudder.

My point in responding to your posts was to present some facts. You have refused to deal with the facts themselves, and have turned the argument into one of "you are not being nice, westbankmama, and you are making people not like you."

Living where I do, I am used to this - as a matter of fact, there is such a huge line, you'll have to take a number.

But that won't deter me from pointing out innacuracies in your posts.

Westbankmama:

In fact, I have answered all of your fact-attacks. I haven't said you're not being nice, I've said you're ad-hominem attacks on a man in a coma, and let's face it, on me, do not make you or your position look terribly appealing. More the shame since I happen to be on your side. You're just too rigid or angry or wrapped up in your own victimhood--"take a number"--to recognize a friend when you see one.

I welcome all coherent dialogue. When I make mistakes, and my readers point them out, very quickly I might add, I'm the first to admit it, and I make necessary corrections.