11/08/2014
***This is the 3rd stage of 4 stages in our O.D.I.N Prescience Intelligence System. More will be posted.*** (Explore our page Munitio Thor for more!)
First and foremost, we would love for you to share all our analysis if you find it is worthy enough, only we humbly asks to always mention or quote our work wherever possible. Thank You!
Intelligence Strengthening (3rd Stage)
The 3rd stage of our ODIN system will intelligently strengthen all information and intelligence gathered, analysed and graded based on our propriety algorithm and intelligence networks around the globe together with our propriety input. The intelligence filtering will be based on around the globe intelligence sources which are collaborated and corroborated. This will always be the basis of our algorithm on this 3rd stage keeping in view with our main biases. The analysis and filtering contained herein will bolster and strengthen our previous findings and analysis and provide the basics for actions in the fourth and final stage of the odin prescience intelligence system.
Please bear in mind, that the information contained herein are truncated from ODIN’s main source for our humble view of ease of reading to decision makers or readers alike and to safeguard our own system and findings. Should anyone is interested to know a bit further, do not hesitate to contact us, we’ll provide accordingly and where necessary.
==A War Without a Military Outcome, another spring cleaning==
The most interesting aspect of this war is that both sides apparently found it necessary, despite knowing it would have no definitive military outcome. The kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers followed by the incineration of a Palestinian boy triggered this conflict. An argument of infinite regression always rages as to the original sin: Who committed the first crime?
For the Palestinians, the original crime was the migration into the Palestinian mandate by Jews, the creation of the State of Israel and the expulsion of Arabs from that state SINCE 1948. For Israel, the original sin came after the 1967 war, during which Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. At that moment, the Israelis were prepared to discuss a deal, but the Arabs announced their famous "three nos" at a meeting in Khartoum: no negotiation, no recognition, no peace. That locked the Israelis into an increasingly rigid stance. Attempts at negotiations have followed the Khartoum declaration, all of which failed, and the "no recognition" and "no peace" agreement is largely intact. Cease-fires are the best that anyone can hope for. Our analysis have shown, the Khartoum declaration by hook or by crook must be done and upheld as we can see the first original sin was done by the Israelis and its allies in 1948. So, for political posturing, the Israelis will always reference its right to statehood on the 1967 war.
For Hamas, at least -- and our analysis suspect for many Palestinians in the West Bank -- the only solution is Israel's elimination which we believe is the only way, one way or another. For many Israelis, the only solution is to continue to occupy all captured territories until the Palestinians commit to peace and recognition. Since the same Israelis do not believe that day will ever come, the occupation would become permanent.
Under these circumstances, the Gaza war is in some sense a matter of Spring Cleaning, which our analysis have repeatedly shown and which with a heavy heart we have to say. For Hamas, the point of the operation is demonstrating it can fire rockets at Israel. These rockets are inaccurate, but the important thing is that they were smuggled into Gaza at all through well built tunnel networks, since this suggests more dangerous weapons eventually will be smuggled in to the Palestinian territory with the right financial strengths. At the same time, Hamas is demonstrating that it remains able to incur casualties while continuing to fight. That is the strategy employed by Hamas at this time. They know the Israelis will eventually pulled out of the ground incursion.
For the Israelis, the point of the operation is that they are willing to carry it out at all. The Israelis undoubtedly intend to punish Gaza, but they do not believe they can impose their will on Gaza and compel the Palestinians to reach a political accommodation with Israel. War's purpose is to impose your political will on your enemy. But unless the Israelis surprise us immensely, nothing decisive will come out of this conflict and as we said earlier, it is one way or another. Even if Israel somehow destroyed Hamas, another organisation would emerge to fill its space in the Palestinian ecosystem. Israel can't go far enough to break the Palestinian will to resist; it is dependent on a major third-party state to help meet Israeli security needs. This creates an inherent contradiction whereby Israel receives enough American support to guarantee its existence but because of humanitarian concerns is not allowed to take the kind of decisive action that might solve its security problem.
We thus see periodic violence of various types, none of which will be intended or expected to achieve any significant political outcome. Wars here have become a series of bloodstained gestures. There are some limited ends to achieve, such as closing Palestinian tunnels and demonstrating Palestinian capabilities that force Israel into an expensive defensive posture. But Hamas will not be defeated, and Israel will make no concessions.
==The right to Sovereignty and political viability problems==
The question therefore is not what the point of all this is but where all this ends. All things human end. Previous longstanding conflicts, such as those between France and England, ended or at least changed shape. Israel and Palestine accordingly will resolve their conflict in due course.
Many believe the creation of a Palestinian state will be the solution, and those who believe this often have trouble understanding why this self-evidently sensible solution has not been implemented. The reason is the proposed solution is not nearly as sensible as it might appear to some.
Issues of viability and sovereignty surround any discussion of a Palestinian state. Land areas and geography raises questions about the viability of any Palestinian polity. Palestine has two population centers, Gaza and the West Bank, which are detached from one another, which is the product of the Israelis. One population center, Gaza, is an enormously crowded, narrow salient. Its ability to develop a sustainable economy is limited and even so lifted, the rigid stance of the Israelis still hinders the Palestinians economy. The West Bank has more possibilities, but even it would be subordinate to a rigid Israel. If the Palestinian workforce is drawn into the Israeli economy, both territories will become adjuncts to Israel. Within its current borders, a viable Palestine is impossible to imagine what with the rigid stance of the Israelis.
From the Israeli point of view, creating a Palestine along something resembling the 1967 lines (leaving aside the question of Jerusalem) would give the Palestinians superb targets, namely, Tel Aviv and Haifa. Given its history, Israel is unlikely to take that risk unless it had the right to oversee security in the West Bank in some way. That in turn would undermine Palestinian sovereignty.
As you play out the possibilities in any two-state solution, you run into the problem that any solution one side demanded would be unbearable to the other. Geography by itself simply won't permit two sovereign states. In this sense, the extremists on both sides are more realistic than the moderates. But that reality encounters other problems.
==Israel's posturing apex reached==
Currently, Israel is as secure as it is ever likely to be unless Hamas disappears, never to be replaced, and the West Bank becomes even more accommodating to Israel. Neither of these prospects is likely. Israel's economy towers over its neighbours. The Palestinians are weak and divided. None of Israel's neighbours pose any threat of invasion, a situation in place since the 1977 neutralisation of Egypt. Jordan is locked into a close relation with Israel, Egypt has its peace treaty and Hezbollah is bogged down in Syria by the Syrian government and Islamic State’s insurgency. Apart from Gaza, which is a relatively minor threat, Israel's position is difficult to improve and will likely to stay that way as the Israelis intended.
Israel can't radically shift its demography. As our analysis suggests, several evolutions in the region could move against Israel. Egypt could change governments, renounce its treaty, rearm and re-enter the Sinai Peninsula. Hezbollah could use its experience in Syria to open a front in Lebanon. Syria could get an Islamic State-led government and threaten the Golan Heights. Islamists could overthrow Jordan's Hashemite monarchy and pose a threat to the east. Turkey could evolve into a radical Islamic government and send forces to challenge Israel. A cultural revolution could take place in the Arab world that would challenge Israel's economic and perceived political superiority, and therefore its ability to wage war. Iran could smuggle missiles into Gaza, and so on.
There is accordingly an asymmetry of possibilities based on our analysis. It is difficult to imagine any evolution, technical, political or economic, that would materially improve Israel's already dominant position, but there are many things that could weaken Israel -- some substantially. Each may appear far-fetched at the moment, but everything in the future seems far-fetched. None is inconceivable.
It is a rule of politics and business to bargain from strength. Israel is now as strong as it is going to be, and that is why it is in their interests to carryout the Spring cleaning and prolong or shorten the perceived conflict in their favour whichever it is. But Israel does not think that it can reach an accommodation with the Palestinians that would guarantee Israeli national security, a view based on a realistic reading of geography, the land areas, political divides and the economy. Therefore, Israel sees little purpose in making concessions to the Palestinians despite its relative position of strength.
In these circumstances, the Israeli strategy is to maintain its power at a maximum level and use what influence it has to prevent the emergence of new threats. From this perspective, the Israeli strategy on settlements makes sense. If there will be no talks, and Israel must maintain its overwhelming advantage, creating strategic depth in the West Bank is sensible and thus have full control of Jerusalem; it would be less sensible if there were a possibility of a peace treaty in the Palestinians favour. Israel must also inflict a temporary defeat on any actively hostile Palestinian force from time to time to set them back several years and to demonstrate Israeli capabilities for psychological purposes.
The Palestinian position meanwhile must be to maintain its political cohesion and wait, using its position to try to drive wedges between Israel and its foreign patrons, particularly the United States, but understanding that the only change in the status quo will come from changes outside the Israeli-Palestinian complex. The primary Palestinian problem will be to maintain itself as a distinct entity with sufficient power to resist an Israeli assault for some time. Any peace treaty in the Israelis favour would weaken the Palestinians by pulling them into the Israeli orbit and splitting them up. By refusing a peace treaty, they remain distinct, if divided. That guarantees they will be there when circumstances change.
==Our Prescience Intelligence for the future of this region==
Israel's major problem is that circumstances always change. Predicting the military capabilities of the Arab and Islamic worlds in 20-30 years is difficult. Most likely, they will not be weaker than they are today, and a strong argument can be made that at least several of their constituents will be stronger. If in 20-30 years some or all assume a hostile posture against Israel, Israel will be in trouble.
Time is not on Israel's side. At some point, something will likely happen to weaken its position, while it is unlikely that anything will happen to strengthen its position. That normally would be an argument for entering negotiations, but the Palestinians will not negotiate a deal that would leave them weak and divided, and any deal that Israel could live with would do just that.
What we are seeing in Gaza is merely another needless Spring Cleaning war, that is, each side trying to maintain its position. The Palestinians need to maintain solidarity for the long haul. The Israelis need to hold their strategic superiority as long as they can. But nothing lasts forever, and over time, the relative strength of Israel will decline. Meanwhile, the relative strength of the Palestinians may increase, though this isn't certain. Circumstances change.
Looking at the relative risks, making a high-risk deal with the Palestinians would seem prudent in the long run. But nations do not make decisions on such abstract calculations. Israel will bet on its ability to stay strong. From a political standpoint, it has no choice. The Palestinians will bet on the long game. They have no choice. And in the meantime, blood will periodically flow.
