You’re suggesting more “walking on egg shells” in Lebanese villages; gets lots of soldiers killled and achieves little. Sorry, but announce in Arabic that civilians have 24 hours to leave then you bomb them hard from the air, then send in the tanks. Giving civilians some warning is more than the subhumans in Lebanon and Gaza who indiscriminately target Israeli civilians. You also hit the capital, Beirut really hard.
The alternative is, you show weakness and the enemy wins. They’re already winning. Northern Israel is becoming uninhabited.
If Iron Beam proves effective, look to its being deployed by U.S. forces in Europe and the Pacific if not sold outright to specific NATO countries, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan and possibly Taiwan to name the most obvious candidates. As a collateral consequence, watch for a future pro-Israel tilt, even if only marginal, in these countries international proclamations.
Relatedly, when the current 10 year agreement negotiated under the Obama Administration is up, Israel might be able to renegotiate its terms from a position of strength (Iron Beam), if not scrap any future agreement altogether. If Iron Dome had circumscribed Israel’s military thinking, these 10 year agreements have limited Israel’s freedom of action on the battlefield.
I think Israel’s future also requires a publicly announced strategy that combines the defensive capabilities of its anti-missile defense with a clear line that any attack will be met with massive retaliation whose goal will be to prevent any future assault. Perhaps this element is left unspoken but implied, but the enemy leadership will be targeted from the outset - that way, if the enemy leaders goes into hiding or is on the move, this could be an early warning to Israel that something bad is in the works. In that region, a strong statement to this effect is the only form of deterrence worthy of the name.
But this needs to be combined with a plan to deepen Israel’s ongoing political integration into the region. Therefore, it should announce a plan for a future state of Palestine that is, however, conditioned on deradicalization, educational reform, transparency in a civil government and with a police force only (like Costa Rica). Gaza, once again, will be the test case but the disputed territories in Judea and Samaria can experiment as well. Jerusalem will not be divided but Muslim worship and their religious rights will continue to be respected, though all groups will have equal rights of access (in other words, the “status quo” that existed in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s liberation of “East” Jerusalem in 1967).
Of course, this will be a generational project so, in the near future, it’s not giving away much. Israel can always point to the allies’ treatment of postwar Germany and Japan as models but with a far smaller direct Israeli footprint. Such a political horizon should be enough to satisfy Saudi Arabia and the other countries that have decided their national interests require a rapprochement with Israel.
As a related matter, it would be helpful if Israel’s public diplomacy would at least take the time to mention that Israel in its modern incarnation was in part the result of an international consensus arising from the post-WWI territorial dispensation that also saw the creation of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq and that the question, if any, should not be “why Israel?” but “while only Israel?” - in other words, why were the Jewish people the only indigenous group to be given the right to self-determination among all of the region’s indigenous groups? That reframing of the issue would serve as a counterweight to the current attempts at delegitimizing Israel through the lazy faculty-lounge theorizing on decolonization and settler-colonialism. At a minimum, as the saying goes, it couldn’t hurt.
The “current 10 year agreement negotiated under the Obama Administration” was specifically intended to make Israel wholly dependent on the US for its defense, and to focus Israel on defensive weapons — to Israel’s now-apparent detriment. All part of the Obama realignment of power between Iran and Saudi/Israel. A tragedy (in many, many respects) that Israeli leadership bought into it hook, line and sinker.
The iron beam can be used offensively too, to cook Hezbollah operatives who show their face near the border. That would have a deterrence greater than bombing them. There’s no sound of a plane or tank or anything before Islamist terrorists immolate.
Speaking of high intensity lasers, how does Israel accomplish taking the “offensive” under the intense scrutiny of Western liberalism? Why does Israel have to remain passively “defensive” when its foes are not held to the same standards? Why can Hamas slaughter and bombard Israeli civilians yet Israel is condemned for “genocide” when acting offensively against a foe actively professing Israel does not have a right to exist? The problem is Israel can’t offensively win a battle while losing the propaganda war as witnessed in Gaza.
Is there a concept of ‘balanced offense’ accompanied by a very public ‘compassionate defense’ and humanitarian offensive. No,a defensive stance is not enough particularly in the rough neighborhood Israel inhabits, but brutal violence can also become lazy and complacent.
If Israel is to exist as an outpost of Western liberalism it must find a way to balance an ancient history of Middle Eastern feudal power politics while demonstrating possible Western alternative concepts. Israel must not only take the military offensive but the moral offensive as well. To do so, Israel needs to feel supported and secure in support of its strategic displays of compassion and restraint without being demonized as “genocidal colonists” by the Western far left. We need to strengthen our moral support for Israel while being realistic about the realities of the brutality of its foes.
High tech certainly has some advantages, and hopefully there will always be someone thinking that next step ahead, but never underestimate the value of low tech. (e.g. Oct. 7).
Not all the facts fit, or should be made to fit, a single narrative. The Bar-Lev line was never intended to stop a major attack; it was a remnant of the War of Attrition and Ariel Sharon, as Southern Commander, had wanted to take it down but bureaucratic inertia prevailed.
Israel didn't strike back in the First Gulf War because of heavy US pressure not to disrupt the Arab coalition against Saddam Hussein, which would have collapsed if Israel also attacked him.
The true value of Iron Dome is not the cost of the rockets it destroys but the damage they could cause if they're not stopped.
That said, both Netanyahu and Olmert pursued a very cautious approach, allowing Israel's enemies to build up without interference. Today, who would argue that the cost of maintaining a buffer zone in South Lebanon was not a better alternative than the present?
(Issues surrounding the Bar-Lev line wonderfully covered in Abraham Rabinovich The Yom Kippur War)
Very interesting insight. I’ll forward your blog to some friends.
Last time I was in Israel was around Rosh Hashanah in ‘23. I so enjoyed walking along the water to Jaffa, and it was so calm, the cats were waiting with the fisherman to get a hopeful handout.
I pass by Elbit's facility many times in any given month, a relatively new facility about 20 minutes from where I live. I had no idea what it was all about (yes, I could've easily checked them out on the internet, but didn't), but now whenever I pass it, I'll say a little prayer for their successful endeavors. Thank you for this thoughtful column as always, Mr. Ambassador.
"The IDF will have to move swiftly into the two hundred Lebanese villages in which the terrorists have installed their launchers. Israeli troops will have to advance village by village, house by house, to end the incessant volleys. The cost will be incalculable."
I am no military expert, but I would hazard a guess that if this is the thinking in Israel, it might as well quit now. Would it not make more sense to order the evacuation of this area, followed by intensive and sustained bombardment, prior to a ground assault? It is not as if Israel lacks justification at this point.
Similar cautions were made before the launch of the ground offensive in Gaza, a far more built-up area than South Lebanon with hundreds of kilometers of tunnels and bunkers.
Yet Israel quickly captured the main areas (celebrating Hanukah in Palestine Square, Gaza City, within a few weeks) at the cost of 313 dead so far.
Gaza City, Khan Younis and now Rafah were captured quickly once the order was given.
Intelligently, rather than keep troops on permanent patrol as the US did in Iraq, the IDF withdrew once it had destroyed infrastructure and returns only in raids when enough Hamas are present.
Seems like there are some significant differences. Civilian evacuation from Gaza was impossible. Also, more extensive bombardment there would have increased the risk to hostages.
You’re suggesting more “walking on egg shells” in Lebanese villages; gets lots of soldiers killled and achieves little. Sorry, but announce in Arabic that civilians have 24 hours to leave then you bomb them hard from the air, then send in the tanks. Giving civilians some warning is more than the subhumans in Lebanon and Gaza who indiscriminately target Israeli civilians. You also hit the capital, Beirut really hard.
The alternative is, you show weakness and the enemy wins. They’re already winning. Northern Israel is becoming uninhabited.
If Iron Beam proves effective, look to its being deployed by U.S. forces in Europe and the Pacific if not sold outright to specific NATO countries, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan and possibly Taiwan to name the most obvious candidates. As a collateral consequence, watch for a future pro-Israel tilt, even if only marginal, in these countries international proclamations.
Relatedly, when the current 10 year agreement negotiated under the Obama Administration is up, Israel might be able to renegotiate its terms from a position of strength (Iron Beam), if not scrap any future agreement altogether. If Iron Dome had circumscribed Israel’s military thinking, these 10 year agreements have limited Israel’s freedom of action on the battlefield.
I think Israel’s future also requires a publicly announced strategy that combines the defensive capabilities of its anti-missile defense with a clear line that any attack will be met with massive retaliation whose goal will be to prevent any future assault. Perhaps this element is left unspoken but implied, but the enemy leadership will be targeted from the outset - that way, if the enemy leaders goes into hiding or is on the move, this could be an early warning to Israel that something bad is in the works. In that region, a strong statement to this effect is the only form of deterrence worthy of the name.
But this needs to be combined with a plan to deepen Israel’s ongoing political integration into the region. Therefore, it should announce a plan for a future state of Palestine that is, however, conditioned on deradicalization, educational reform, transparency in a civil government and with a police force only (like Costa Rica). Gaza, once again, will be the test case but the disputed territories in Judea and Samaria can experiment as well. Jerusalem will not be divided but Muslim worship and their religious rights will continue to be respected, though all groups will have equal rights of access (in other words, the “status quo” that existed in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s liberation of “East” Jerusalem in 1967).
Of course, this will be a generational project so, in the near future, it’s not giving away much. Israel can always point to the allies’ treatment of postwar Germany and Japan as models but with a far smaller direct Israeli footprint. Such a political horizon should be enough to satisfy Saudi Arabia and the other countries that have decided their national interests require a rapprochement with Israel.
As a related matter, it would be helpful if Israel’s public diplomacy would at least take the time to mention that Israel in its modern incarnation was in part the result of an international consensus arising from the post-WWI territorial dispensation that also saw the creation of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq and that the question, if any, should not be “why Israel?” but “while only Israel?” - in other words, why were the Jewish people the only indigenous group to be given the right to self-determination among all of the region’s indigenous groups? That reframing of the issue would serve as a counterweight to the current attempts at delegitimizing Israel through the lazy faculty-lounge theorizing on decolonization and settler-colonialism. At a minimum, as the saying goes, it couldn’t hurt.
The “current 10 year agreement negotiated under the Obama Administration” was specifically intended to make Israel wholly dependent on the US for its defense, and to focus Israel on defensive weapons — to Israel’s now-apparent detriment. All part of the Obama realignment of power between Iran and Saudi/Israel. A tragedy (in many, many respects) that Israeli leadership bought into it hook, line and sinker.
Terrible deal for Israel. Must depend only on Israel. The USA aid must be spent in us on us weaponry.
I wish that Iron Dome could be designed to both shoot down inbound ordnance then fire a response to its origin each time.
The iron beam can be used offensively too, to cook Hezbollah operatives who show their face near the border. That would have a deterrence greater than bombing them. There’s no sound of a plane or tank or anything before Islamist terrorists immolate.
Thoughtful piece.
Speaking of high intensity lasers, how does Israel accomplish taking the “offensive” under the intense scrutiny of Western liberalism? Why does Israel have to remain passively “defensive” when its foes are not held to the same standards? Why can Hamas slaughter and bombard Israeli civilians yet Israel is condemned for “genocide” when acting offensively against a foe actively professing Israel does not have a right to exist? The problem is Israel can’t offensively win a battle while losing the propaganda war as witnessed in Gaza.
Is there a concept of ‘balanced offense’ accompanied by a very public ‘compassionate defense’ and humanitarian offensive. No,a defensive stance is not enough particularly in the rough neighborhood Israel inhabits, but brutal violence can also become lazy and complacent.
If Israel is to exist as an outpost of Western liberalism it must find a way to balance an ancient history of Middle Eastern feudal power politics while demonstrating possible Western alternative concepts. Israel must not only take the military offensive but the moral offensive as well. To do so, Israel needs to feel supported and secure in support of its strategic displays of compassion and restraint without being demonized as “genocidal colonists” by the Western far left. We need to strengthen our moral support for Israel while being realistic about the realities of the brutality of its foes.
High tech certainly has some advantages, and hopefully there will always be someone thinking that next step ahead, but never underestimate the value of low tech. (e.g. Oct. 7).
Not all the facts fit, or should be made to fit, a single narrative. The Bar-Lev line was never intended to stop a major attack; it was a remnant of the War of Attrition and Ariel Sharon, as Southern Commander, had wanted to take it down but bureaucratic inertia prevailed.
Israel didn't strike back in the First Gulf War because of heavy US pressure not to disrupt the Arab coalition against Saddam Hussein, which would have collapsed if Israel also attacked him.
The true value of Iron Dome is not the cost of the rockets it destroys but the damage they could cause if they're not stopped.
That said, both Netanyahu and Olmert pursued a very cautious approach, allowing Israel's enemies to build up without interference. Today, who would argue that the cost of maintaining a buffer zone in South Lebanon was not a better alternative than the present?
(Issues surrounding the Bar-Lev line wonderfully covered in Abraham Rabinovich The Yom Kippur War)
Interesting and, I must say, pretty depressing.
Very interesting insight. I’ll forward your blog to some friends.
Last time I was in Israel was around Rosh Hashanah in ‘23. I so enjoyed walking along the water to Jaffa, and it was so calm, the cats were waiting with the fisherman to get a hopeful handout.
Excellent article
It seems to me you (and others) are thinking Defense. Maybe (just Maybe) people should think more Offense.
The problem with emphasizing Defense is someone will come up with a way to counter it.
I pass by Elbit's facility many times in any given month, a relatively new facility about 20 minutes from where I live. I had no idea what it was all about (yes, I could've easily checked them out on the internet, but didn't), but now whenever I pass it, I'll say a little prayer for their successful endeavors. Thank you for this thoughtful column as always, Mr. Ambassador.
"The IDF will have to move swiftly into the two hundred Lebanese villages in which the terrorists have installed their launchers. Israeli troops will have to advance village by village, house by house, to end the incessant volleys. The cost will be incalculable."
I am no military expert, but I would hazard a guess that if this is the thinking in Israel, it might as well quit now. Would it not make more sense to order the evacuation of this area, followed by intensive and sustained bombardment, prior to a ground assault? It is not as if Israel lacks justification at this point.
Similar cautions were made before the launch of the ground offensive in Gaza, a far more built-up area than South Lebanon with hundreds of kilometers of tunnels and bunkers.
Yet Israel quickly captured the main areas (celebrating Hanukah in Palestine Square, Gaza City, within a few weeks) at the cost of 313 dead so far.
Gaza City, Khan Younis and now Rafah were captured quickly once the order was given.
Intelligently, rather than keep troops on permanent patrol as the US did in Iraq, the IDF withdrew once it had destroyed infrastructure and returns only in raids when enough Hamas are present.
Seems like there are some significant differences. Civilian evacuation from Gaza was impossible. Also, more extensive bombardment there would have increased the risk to hostages.
Thank you, very interesting reading.
I know a few Israelis. Most aren't very nice people.
Greedy, arrogant and presumptuous
At least you're not anti-Semitic...
How do you feel about " I know a few blacks. Lazy, pushy and not very knowledgeable about partial differential equations"
Jew hate much?
Thank you for your incredibly sharp and fact-based analysis. We truly need unbiased, clear-headed thinkers like you. Lol
I do not need you.
Just like Americans
You're in the wrong part of USA
Where's the "right" part?
Nebraska
😂 No better or worse then anywhere else in this country.
Hey why not come for a visit?