Tell Me How This Ends
Finding a Strategic Endgame in Gaza
“Tell me how this ends.” - GEN David Petraeus, in relation to the war in Iraq
Israel should identify a strategic end state for the Gaza conflict before it invades. Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz once wrote, “[W]ar is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means[.]” Put more simply, having a defined goal allows the military to contribute its part and defines when its role is complete. Having fought in two wars with muddy aims myself, I can attest to the importance of providing a positive vision of the future that inspires and guides action.
The unmitigated horror of Hamas’s actions in Israel does not define a strategic end state, but rather an operational goal of eliminating the immediate threat to Israeli security. For the last decade or so, Israel has pursued a policy of limited intervention in Gaza, trying to use targeted actions to limit Hamas’s capacity for large-scale terrorism. If nothing else, the massacre of Israeli civilians shows the failure of that containment strategy. But, if the goal is not merely to reduce Hamas’s military capacity, what should it be?
The extremists on either side can’t win. Far right Israeli politicians and terrorists in Hamas both have unattainable and inhumane goals. For the hard right, Israel is their promised land and Arabs should have no right to stay in or political representation in an Israeli state. Hamas has the unequivocal goal of wiping Israel off the map. In between these two absolutist positions, we have the tension that has defined mainstream Israeli politics in recent years - should there be an Israeli state and a Palestinian state or should there be one democratic state?
Only the Israeli and Palestinian people can answer that question, but both possible outcomes rely on the social and economic success of Palestinians and security for Israelis. Just as Israel can’t win the conflict through military action, neither can Palestinians, because resolving the conflict involves finding the kind of compromises that can only arise from peaceful coexistence and the kind of security that makes people believe that peace is better than war. Consider the example of Northern Ireland. Peace did not come because either side “won” but rather because the differences across the border got smaller and smaller and the social and economic success of both sides made peace more attractive than war. A simple definition of the strategic end state might be, “an economically and socially successful Palestinian community that lives in peace with its Israeli neighbors.”
Israel will invade Gaza. Proportionally by population, the attacks on Israeli society were more than ten times the impact of Pearl Harbor had on the US, in a country with an area 25% smaller than Hawaii. Hamas has made it clear that they will continue to commit atrocities against Israeli civilians, including executing hostages, while using their own civilian population as human shields. These are not that actions of a group that can reach a negotiated settlement and stick to it, but rather those of an ideology that does not recognize an obligation to human decency. Israel will invade because it has to do so to protect itself.
But an ideology can’t be killed with military force. Ideologies are disproven through lived experience, not through violent means. Going back to General Petraeus’s fundamental question, what happens after the invasion?
The Occupation. As we discovered to our sorrow in Iraq and Afghanistan, occupations rarely achieve their long-term goals. Fundamentally, they are always an external authority exercising non-democratic power over a disempowered majority. An occupied society can never be a successful one.
Israel has a legitimate interest in protecting their people. Effectively, that means that someone must ensure that Gaza does not become a staging ground for violence against Israel again. Israel’s invasion will reduce Hamas’s capacity for violence, but it will take another peacekeeping force to provide the security Israel needs, while setting the conditions for economic and social success for the people of Gaza. Ideally, this would be an Arabic-speaking country with a good enough relationship with Israel to ensure trust. This is a tall order, as the country providing the peacekeepers will receive criticism from extremes on both sides.
Two Steps Back to Go One Forward. Accepting the inevitability of invasion and at least a short occupation, what can Israel do to ensure that these actions support the strategic goal of a peaceful and successful Palestinian community in Gaza? First, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) must keep the fight as clean as possible. There are many reasons not to commit war crimes, of course, but the most overlooked is often that avoiding them helps the losing side accept a lasting peace. Killing civilians and destroying (civilian) infrastructure are contrary to that goal. Second, the IDF should get out of Gaza as soon as possible, handing off security responsibilities to a peacekeeping force. The peacekeeping force must also share the strategic goal of peaceful coexistence and have sufficient political support to stay the course in the face of inevitable criticism from both Palestinians and Israelis. Third, the international community must come together with a shared vision of political, social, and economic success for the Palestinian people. That will mean a commitment of aid to help with reconstruction as well as refusing to re-arm terrorists.
I don’t expect that all this will happen quickly or evenly. With Hamas using human shields and actively obstructing people from leaving the battlefields, civilian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure will be inevitable. No one is jumping up to volunteer for peacekeeping duty in Gaza. And far too many countries continue to support violence against Israel. It will take time, but we know the road we have to walk.
News and Notes
Border Security/Ukraine Deal. Yes, I promised my next column would address what a deal on this might look like. No, this one doesn’t. The continued dysfunction in the House makes it difficult to see how anything will happen, and the Israel story has more urgency. I will get to it!
Candidates to Keep an Eye On. On a happier note, I want to tell you about a few folks I’m pleased to see running for public office.
Kaarin Knudson for Eugene Mayor - I’ve known her for years. She cares passionately about Eugene and has worked hard to make it a beautiful and liveable city. She’ll make an excellent mayor.
Dan Rayfield for Attorney General - Dan is a good egg. He one of the few people in politics I know who takes the time to fully understand and issue and still has the energy to push things in the right direction. We didn’t agree on everything, but he always took the time to talk and explain his position.
Janelle Bynum for Congressional District 5 - Janelle was one of my favorite colleagues. She’s passionate about social justice and understands the business world.
Tobias Read for Secretary of State - I expect that we’re going to have an embarrassment of riches in candidates for SoS. I like Tobias because he deeply understands government and where the voters are. He takes the time to learn and educate others.
It is early and there will be many worthy candidates. I’m glad to see a few of them getting an early start.
Interesting thoughts. I like how it’s not inflammatory or one sided like everything on this issue is. Apparently you must take sides or you hate Israeli children or want Palestinian in children to suffer.
I appreciate what you have written here on a very difficult topic. Your analysis makes sense, and you've broken it down in an approachable way. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.