Brian M Downing
The matter of a Palestinian state has for the most part fallen by the wayside. Recently, however, Vladimir Putin has broached the idea of holding talks in Russia between Israel and the Palestinians. The talks will not be productive. The Israeli Right is determined to settle large parts of the West Bank, leaving less useful parts to hapless indigenous people.
Criticism of the takeover is widespread in Israeli life, including from many generals, retired and active duty. Deep divisions are opening in society and the army too. Over the years Israeli generals and security chiefs have been critical of the occupation of the 
West Bank. In 1968, not long after the Six Day War, Yigal Allon, a retired general, said that holding on to the West Bank would make it into a “Bantustan”.
Last week, Gadi Shamni, former commanding general of the West Bank, mordantly declared his country the “world champion of occupation”, adding that it had raised the practice to an “art form”. The general’s remarks caused outrage, but they are part of growing criticism of the occupation, and of the parties that support it.
Defense in depth
One of the arguments for holding on to the West Bank, in one way or another, is that Israel is only ten miles wide at some points. A determined and effective enemy could drive to the sea and cut the country in two.
The argument was underscored in some defense quarters after the Yom Kippur War (1973) when Egyptian forces breached the Bar Lev Line and drove well into Sinai. Although the offensive was defeated, the lesson was clear: the same success in the east could cleave Israel in half.
Many generals now dismiss the defense-in-depth argument for retaining the West Bank. There is no danger of an armor thrust from the east. Jordan is on good terms with Israel and its army is simply too small to constitute a threat. The other prospective enemy to the northeast, Syria, no longer exists. There may be a Shia rump state that would remain hostile to Israel, but without its Sunni population – and indeed at war with them for the foreseeable future – the rump state cannot pose a threat.
Occupation as distraction
Generals note that their mission is to defend the nation from foreign threats. The army has performed this task ably since the Haganah was formed during the Mandate. They established, then defended, the borders with hostile Arab states, and developed considerable mastery of mobile warfare, air power, logistics, and special forces operations.
Then, in 1967, the army became a government and police force in the West Bank, requiring the army to add new doctrines and train troops in skills unrelated to national defense, as the generals defined it. As settlements expanded, the army had to keep the peace between two increasingly hostile inhabitants. Many soldiers complain of duties unrelated to defending the nation and incompatible with religious beliefs.
The West Bank may soon pose a further distraction as Palestinians lose faith in a national agenda and turn to a more radical one. Shin Bet estimates that several dozen Palestinians have crossed into Syria and are serving with al Qaeda and ISIL. Many will die in the war. Others will return more skilled than anyone in the intifada.
Moral foundations
Since the Exile period and the occupation by Greeks and Romans in Antiquity, the Jewish people have lived under foreign rule, or as minorities in far-flung lands. Rich moral teachings developed while empires and nation-states exulted in conquests and power prestige. These teachings became integral to the national identity in 1948.
The Six-Day War brought relief from the concern of the new state’s extinction, with all the fears associated with the recent past in Europe. It also brought exuberance and in especially religious Israelis, a sense of greatness and destiny. Vast new lands were in their hands, as in the days of the great kings. They had to be settled and defended. Indigenous people were not part of the unfolding of national destiny, though their marginalization and eviction were.
The population is divided between those who hold fast to the nation’s founding principles of justice and those devoted to expanding borders, not to make the borders more secure, but to be part of a messianic vision. Generals look at the occupation, almost a half century on, and at the constant expansion of settlements, and ask along General Shamni, “Is this what we want to be?”
International isolation
Objections to the settlements, and the emerging irrelevance of the two-state solution, are intermittent and feckless in the US. A few generals, including Ehud Barak, see the government’s policies leading to serious problems.
The government and its supporters overseas point to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) as an essentially antisemitic movement and hope to prevent it from becoming effective. Others see it growing, especially in Europe and important parts of the developing world with which Israel hopes to have trade.
Barak, once a Labor prime minister and later defense minister under Netanyahu, has been vocal. While in the Netanyahu cabinet, he argued for attacking Iranian nuclear sites but insisted that progress must be made on a Palestinian state or Israeli actions would lead to painful economic responses from Europe.
Army coherence, national unity
Militaries take pride in their unity of purpose in defending the nation. The unity of the IDF has been one of the chief reasons that it has been able to defeat larger Arab armies which are divided by sectarian, tribal, and political grounds. The West Bank is weakening the IDF’s unity.
Many soldiers object to having to intimidate and repress Palestinians – and having to defend settlers they see as extremists. Some of the latter, they know, advocated the assassination of former general and then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Some celebrated his death.
The army is no longer the chiefly secular institution it once was. In recent years the IDF has seen the influx of young people from settlements and from sympathetic religious groups in Israel. They are especially prominent in elite units and look to religious-political leaders more than to their generals. The army can no longer rely on the obedience of its rank and file on either side of the social divide.
Former special forces officer and retired Mossad chief Tamir Pardo reflected on the growing tensions in the army and in society at large “If a society crosses a certain line in its division and hatred, it is a real possibility to see a phenomenon like a civil war.”
Copyright 2016 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.