T. Belman. After receiving this email and article I didn’t know how to respond. The article was important because it made the point that every second counts and that the high ground should never be ceded. With that I fully agree. But the article seems to suggest that a New State in Sinai is preferable to a Palestinians state in J&S. That goes without saying but I do not believe it was proposed as an alternative. The high ground in J&S should never be given up regardless if a new state is proposed for Sinai.
I believe we should focus on getting the Gazans to emigrate rather than to provide more land to them or a port offshore etc. Our agenda should be to get them to leave.
A retired US intelligence officer who was active for many decades in the ME wrote to me, “You might want to publish this with your comment/evaluation”
Any proposal such as an offshore port for Gaza, a new state solution, etc. coming from an IDF planner, especially from the Air Force worries me.
I remember how arrogantly we were dismissed during the Lebanese incursion by the then IDF Chief of Staff who had been the former commander of the Air Force. We told him that he had only 25% as much time complete his operation as had been promised by Condoleezza Rice.
Further, his helter-skelter hit and withdraw tactics resulted in the loss of IDF lives and Hezbollah retaking control of the areas as soon as the IDF returned from its missions.
My personal insult was when the IDF on security grounds did not publish the wing camera photography showing Hezbollah launch crews firing from courtyards of apartment houses when the IDF was accused of attacking civilian targets and causing civilian casualties.
The New State Solution in a Region Where Seconds Count
In recent months, several senior security experts have expressed support for an alternative to Israel’s status quo with the Palestinians. The plan, known as the New State Solution, proposes joining a coastal section of the northern Sinai Peninsula to the territory of Gaza, forming an expanded P
Irrespective of the political dimensions of this proposed configuration of Palestinian sovereignty, as the immediate past Commander of Israel’s Air Defense Forces, I see distinct advantages in such a plan from the perspective of air defense.
Not Reducing Israel’s Strategic Depth
As a small country lacking strategic depth, every mile of air space under Israel’s control contributes to our reaction time.
To understand the value of a mile to air defense, we do not need to look beyond events of the last week, which demonstrate the kind of time frames that our air defenses are afforded.
Last Wednesday, two missiles fired by ISIS in Syria landed in Israel’s Sea of Galilee. Within seconds of recognizing their trajectory, a decision had to be made whether to intercept the missiles or allow them to impact harmlessly in the water, reportedly within 50 meters (150 feet) of the shoreline.
Just one day prior, a Syrian fighter jet, taking off from the T4 Airbase in central Syria, approached the Golan Heights at high speed, and flew a mile into Israeli airspace before being downed by Israel’s air defenses. The decision to shoot down the plane had to be made and acted upon in the few short seconds that it takes for a fighter jet to traverse a mile at high speed.
The day before that, Israel activated its David’s Sling missile-defense system for the first time in its operational history, in order to fire at two Syrian surface-to-surface missiles that were calculated to fall within Israeli territory. Though the missiles ended up falling short and exploded within Syria, the Air Defense Forces had only moments to assess what actions were needed and react decisively.
Israel possesses remarkably advanced air defenses, but it is crucial to understand that there is a limit to how much technology can compensate for a lack of strategic depth.
It is for this reason that maintaining Israeli air defense control over our skies is vital — and why reducing the territory under our air control would also reduce Israel’s protective envelope over an already narrow strip of land.
In this context, when discussing alternative security configurations relating to our conflict with the Palestinians, I would consider the expansion of Palestinian territory along Israel’s southern border, as in the New State plan, because it does not reduce Israel’s strategic depth.
Not Compromising Israel’s Topographical Advantage
Expanding the territory of Gaza into Sinai would not negatively compromise Israel’s control over the high ground. Both Gaza and the northern Sinai are situated on the coastal lowlands, with Israel retaining the strategic benefit of the Negev highlands. This is an air defense advantage in the case of airborne attacks on Israel.
By contrast, the Palestinian population of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) sits on the mountainous ridge overlooking Israel’s populous central coastline. Millions of Israelis live and work in that coastal area. A Palestinian state perched atop the high ground surrounding Jerusalem, Hebron, or the hills of Samaria would expose extensive, flat Israeli territory — as well as Israeli civilians — to attack. Potential airborne assaults could target strategic sites and cause harm to the cities of central Israel.
Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport could be exposed to weapons such as shoulder-fired missiles targeting aircraft during take-offs and landings from the nearby Samaria hills. On their landing routes, many aircraft also fly near Route 6, which straddles Samaria, bringing them even closer to potential enemy fire in the event of Palestinian control over this topography.
Israel’s current presence on the Jerusalem Hills, which are up to 3,000 feet high, enables early detection of potential long-range threat
Not Reducing the Distance Between Our Populace and Potential Belligerents
During Israel’s 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense and 2014 Operation Protective Edge, short-range mortar fire from Hamas in Gaza killed Israeli civilians and soldiers, and caused significant migration of Israeli residents out of the area adjacent to Gaza. Today, we bear witness to the advent of improvised fire kites launched by Gazans to indiscriminately set fires wherever they land, causing significant damage to open areas, including agricultural fields and woodlands.
While the areas of Israel closest to Gaza are sparsely populated, the opposite is true when it comes to Israel’s central region, which is located in proximity to Judea and Samaria. For example, the Palestinian city of Tulkarem is less than nine miles from the major Israeli city of Netanya. Should Palestinians control Judea and Samaria, these areas — and more beyond them — would be under immediate risk, not just from fire kites, but all manner of airborne attacks, including short-range enemy fire.
Extending the Gaza Strip into part of the Sinai would not reduce Israel’s limited strategic depth. Israel would not cede control of the high ground and lose its topographical advantage. Israel would not shorten the distance between belligerents and the Israeli populace.
If the political will for the New State plan can be garnered, I would not oppose it from an air defense perspective. If the people of Gaza would benefit on a humanitarian basis, I would consider that a positive outcome for both the Palestinians and Israel. If the economy and stability of the Sinai and Egypt benefited as well it would be a boon not only to Egyptians, but to our broader region and the world.
Brigadier-General Shachar Shohat (Ret.) commanded the Israel Air-Defense Forces from 2012-2015.
If we are able to connect the dots, the past dozen (plus) years should have taught us a few points:
1 – A simple fence (or even a series of fences) is not enough to separate a peaceful population from those who want to destroy it. Under normal circumstances, a few kilometers of a border zone should be enough. Here, due to the nature of the Gaza population and government, a no-man’s land of 200km policed by an effective military force would be minimal.
2 – Land is not enough. A political entity needs to have a source of clean water, electricity, and waste treatment in order to survive in a post-Stone-Age culture. The political entity needs to have a working infrastructure.
3 – We cannot rely on the guarantees of governments, not even of our own and certainly not of the EU. Ultimately, these governments do whatever is most convenient for themselves and they will not live up to the promises they make.
@ Bear Klein:
I certainly agree with your opinion, which is the same as that of most of us. To destroy Gaza or pressure them so as to cause them all to clear out, permanently.
I’ve been writing about the following for many years, not only on Israpundit…. It would suit Israel assuming that the Gazans would not emigrate to Timbuktu or further afield, for them to set up a new State (which they’ll never be able to run) in Sinai. Of course this depends on Egypt and I always have believed that this obstacle could be surmounted because, say 800 sq. K (or more) of sandy desert and rocks means little or nothing to Egypt’s well-being, and only their bargaining instincts need be considered. Of course they may refuse, but lately signs are that they will agree..
As you point out, the Gaza Arabs would still keep their hatred of Israel alive and well., They would soon be sending terrorists across the border fence, to wreak as much damage as possible. A “Casus Belli”… Israel in this case, would have it’s enemy in front of it, in open terrain, tHt the IDF knows well.
They would go through New Gaza like a hot knife through butter, with the Gazans having only open desert behind them, with no serious defence infrastructure to fall back on. They could be obliterated before the international haters could try to interfere as so many times before. Another 20 years of martial Law, unless the remaining Gazans had already cleared out of the whole area, absorbing into Egypt perhaps. In that case, Israel would have acquired 800 sq.K of IDF proving grounds.
I like this “Plan”…May it be implemented-and soon.
The Pal-Arabs want to destroy Israel and take it for themselves driving the Jews out, that is their goal. Yes Abbas confused people when lied about his intentions in the long run when speaking English. Yes, the Samaria and its high ground plus strategic depth can never be given up. No Pal-State should be created west of the Jordan River.
Question if the Pal-Arabs were to get a state in the Sinai would they give up their dreams of kicking the Jews out of Israel? Would they give up their hypothetical keys to homes which long ago ceased existing if they ever did? It is more likely that they would use the land in the Sinai to build an army to make war on Israel and try and destroy it. Just like they have when Israel abandoned Gaza. Many of us predicted that Gaza would become a security nightmare if the IDF left Gaza and this has unfortunately came true.
The only solution to Gaza is for the IDF to retake Gaza and destroy Hamas, Islamic Jihad and any other terror groups. Israel should then allow the voluntary exodus of any Pal-Arab who wish to emigrate from Gaza. Polls say way more than 50% wish to leave. Israel should assist the Gazans who are peaceful with their emigration.
Jews owned land in Northern Gaza since the 1930s and a few kibbutzim were built there and Gush Katif was Jewish owned land. If the former owners of these lands wish to reclaim them or sell them to other Israelis for settlement this should be allowed.
ISRAEL THROUGH THE BINOCULARS OF A PALESTINIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
http://www.strategic-israel.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-photos-1.pdf