Lecture of Opportunity - The Israel-Gaza War: A Strategic Overview

This Lecture of Opportunity took place on October 23, 2023.
The views presented by the faculty or other guest speakers do not reflect official positions of the Naval War College, DON or DOD.
Professors Lane and Alvi will provide an overview of the background and current implications of the war between Israel and Hamas, as well as discussion about the strategic implications for the region.
About the Speakers:
Heidi E. Lane is Professor of Strategy and Policy and Director of the Greater Middle East Research Study Group at the Naval War College. She is co-editor of Building Rule of Law in the Arab World and Beyond (2016) and is completing a book titled The Counterterrorist State about national counterterrorism policies and practices in the Middle East. Dr. Lane has served as a visiting research affiliate with the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, as a U.S. Fulbright scholar in Syria, and as a research fellow with the International Security Program at the Belfer Center, Harvard University, and as a senior associate at the Center for Irregular Warfare and Armed Groups (CIWAG) at the Naval War College. She holds an M.A and Ph.D. from UCLA and a B.A. from the University of Chicago. She is trained in Arabic, Hebrew, and Persian and German
Hayat Alvi joined the U.S. Naval War College in 2007. Previously, she served as an assistant professor in the Political Science Department at American University in Cairo from 2001-05 and as the director of the International Studies Program at Arcadia University from 2005-07. She specializes in international relations, political economy and comparative politics with regional expertise in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. She also specializes in Islamic studies and genocide studies. She is proficient in Arabic and Urdu and is a Fulbright Fellow (Syria, 1993-94). Alvi has published numerous articles, books and book chapters.

[@WoTMike1989]

So want to start off by saying I think it is great that these two professors could give their presentations as an American and anyone saying they shouldn't have been allowed to should be ashamed of themselves. That being said, I disagree with a lot of Professor Lane's conclusions and I think Professor Alvi's presentation is mostly useless and was given from an incredibly niche academic perspective. I want to stipulate a few things below. 15 years of policy experience in defense and international relations in both the Congressional and Executive branches. Extensively traveled to Israel, the occupied territories, and throughout the MENA region. 1. I believe the Israeli people deserve a secure state 2. I believe the Palestinian civilian population that has spent decades being the political pawns of a variety of groups since 1948 also deserve a state of their own where they can live freely and go about their lives 3. I think this is an intractable conflict on multiple levels. Moral, cultural, political, and on security. I do not think it will be solved and I think the mowing of the grass will continue. 4. I think the United States is in the process of getting out of the entire region at all levels and the last step that will happen in the next decade will be the weakening or outright snapping of our alliance with Israel. Leaving the region to an alliance of Iran and militant groups vs an Israeli-Arab alliance to fight over with Turkey likely being the deciding factor. I do not think it is in the United States interest to continue to be a mediator in the region or of this conflict specifically. 4. I think people, including Professor Lane, are fundamentally misinterpreting the discord in Israeli society as some kind of objection to the general principles that are at the core of Netanyahu's approach. They may hate him politically. They may think his coalition is dominated by religious nuts. They do not support a Palestinian state and they generally think the approach to getting rid of Hamas is correct. If they had an election today it would be Benny Gantz who would win and while he would change the rhetoric a bit and you would not have the Ben Gvirs, he would likely prosecute the conflict in Gaze very similarly. As for Professor Lane, I think a lot of the historical overview is accurate and people in the comment section are mostly in their feelings about vocabulary that imo does indicate a bit of bias and a lack of belief in agency. The implied defense of the rise of the influence of Islamist groups across the MENA region as civilians turning to them as a last resort was definitely an interesting way of framing it. That being said, mostly accurate. As for Professor Alvi, all due respect but she clearly has views here and also pretty clearly analyzes the world not from the perspective of nation states that have their own interests and are constantly weighing them. The fact she thought the President of the United States was going to go to Israel a week after 10/7 and call for a ceasefire tells you how high up above the world the tower room she resides in is. Also, neither Israel nor Rome are a party to the Rome statute for a reason. Both countries disagreed with where the provisions ended up. People seem to forget Operation Meetinghouse. People seem to forget the Allies bombing civilian infrastructure to try to starve Germany of resources and freeze their citizens to death in the winter. People seem to forget that current US doctrine indicates our first response to an invasion of China would be to plant a carrier group in the Indian Ocean and watch as the lights turn out, the trains stop running, and the second largest country in the world experiences the largest famine since the Great Leap Forward within a few months. That is in fact what war looks like when one side of the equation decides they want to fight to win and not the sanitized version that we sometimes try to convince ourselves exists because we have drones. I disagree that Israel is just out for revenge. The debate everyone should be having is was the complete elimination of Hamas a legitimate security goal. Because that is what they are pursuing and what we are seeing is what the pursuit of that goal would always look like. Every NatSec professional with half a brain could have told you this is what it would look like last November. You have urban combat in one of the most densely population areas in the world with a guerilla force embedded in the civilian population and nowhere for the civilian population to go to. God speed. Precision munitions don't matter at that point. You are going to have to sweep the area and you are going to kill thousands of civilians. So debate if that is a legitimate Israeli security goal after October 7th. That is a debate worth having.

[@warnegoodman]

Very interesting video, but I wish the Q+A was included.

[@gerritsmith6117]

Exactly. I think there was a lot to be gained on both sides of the argument with some push back to the second part of the presentation

[@viciousv4966]

They probably thought it would be too controversial. The second part felt heavily biased

[@warnegoodman]

@@viciousv4966 how so?

[@lawsonadams]

Weird how it currently says there are 10 comments but only 5 are visible… why is that?

[@OceanHedgehog]

There's been a buttload of bot and AI operated accounts that randomly comment the same comments on a bunch of videos. It's very likely that some of the invisible comments were from bots and were deleted/removed.

[@viciousv4966]

The first speaker was neutral while the second speaker was heavily against the PM Netanyahu. I would like to hear more about the Israel West Bank settlers. I was not fully aware of how badly they were treating the Palestinians and I would like to know why Israel has not stepped in to rein them in. It’s fuelling the conflict and it’s bad PR. I would like to know more if solving this problem could be the solution to the conflict. I’m conflicted about the cutting off of water and food to Gaza. It is not ethical but wars are not not won on ethics. I understand that Hamas cannot be defeated by weapons but I also know that giving them a pass on Oct7 will only invite more terror attacks from all anti Israel factions. What is lacking for me is an explanation why the 2 state solution was declines multiple times by the Palestinians? The second speaker is so against the current Israel governing body I’m unsure if she’s just heavily biased.

[@sic5764]

"why Israel has not stepped in to rein them in" - the more settlers the less likely a two state solution becomes. "an explanation why the 2 state solution was declines multiple times by the Palestinians" - Extremists who want all of the land, opportunists who have more to gain when there is no solution, idiots who thought they could get more through other means (usually terror or war) and of course extremists on the Israeli side who have the same motivations just reversed. All working "together" to derail every bit of process every time...

[@WoTMike1989]

Because the ruling government led by Likud as a political party has had to lean more and more on religious hard liners since the 90's to build out its coalition and they are supporters of the settler movements.

[@WoTMike1989]

also as much as I don't agree with a lot of her statements, I don't think she is biased in the way that people traditionally use the word. From the perspective of her academic discipline the current government is perpetrating an ongoing genocide. I don't agree as much as I also don't like the current government but that isn't bias. It is a point of view.

[@rickwrites2612]

​@@WoTMike1989yea, ppl dont understand what bias is. Youre allowed to have a point of view or opinion. Another ruined word.

[@taleymechlovitz6979]

I hope you all know that Gaza belongs to Egypt. And why don't they have their own water and electricity? How come they have money for tunnels and not for servicing their own people?

[@anthonyking1609]

As a graduate of this fine institution, I find this presentation to be unscholarly at best.

[@kofferfischii]

It is complicated.

[@tyronebiggums8660]

What didn’t you like about it?

[@mysikind8076]

Why do you say that?

[@nodarlakhuti7867]

I cannot but agree, and what is far more unfortunate -- beyond their analysis being somewhat biased -- is that these two people teach at this respected institution. I am not familiar with their other works, and I can only hope that perhaps in other fields they are exemplary.

[@animaxima8302]

​@nodarlakhuti7867 why is it biased?

[@glennmitchell9107]

I don't hear a strategic overview. I'm only hearing a condemnation of Israel and Netanyahu.

[@animaxima8302]

you only hear what you want to hear

[@compromisedssh]

That is literally the Hamas strategy--- use human shields to get the body count as high as possible (you know-- on top of provoking the military response in the first place), then cry foul to the rest of the world about how oppressed they are. We've all seen this show before. Thousands of Hamas war crimes will get overlooked and world attention will focus on the one IDF private who lost his mind after discovering that his brother had been killed (said brother was a hostage that Hamas executed when the IDF was breaking through the front door, carrying out a rescue mission).

[@bruceellacott9616]

The second speaker is misrepresenting facts by claiming that Israel is trying to inflict punishment on civilians by a siege. A siege is a legal military strategy. She is essentially a propagandist. Contrary to her claims this is a war not just revenge.

[@kofferfischii]

But she is right. The circle of revenge is no strategy. Maybe she should have started in 1948. The Arabs dont forget. And there are limits to sieges. Ask the Geneva law. It is not so simple. And proportionality is not so simple as well. War can be unproportional.

[@bruceellacott9616]

@@kofferfischii she is wrong to paint this as about revenge. It’s about re-establishing security.

[@kofferfischii]

But in the view of Dinstein it would be a war without end since some events in 1948. Who is self-defending himself? The law of the stronger? I dont know. @@bruceellacott9616

[@kofferfischii]

See about some Arab villages Review: A War to Start All Wars: Will Israel Ever Seal the Victory of 1948? Reviewed Work: 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War BENNY MORRIS Review by: Shlomo Ben-Ami Foreign Affairs Vol. 87, No. 5 (September/October 2008), pp. 148-156 (9 pages) @@bruceellacott9616

[@alex-ff1mp]

the second speaker seams to be a newbie. For sure she is not competent to sustain a presentation about strategy in the Middle east as she is using as the based for the content extras from different opinions from different newspapers. Also the packaging the conflict under the "revenge" term and supporting it with a slide with definitions is childish.

[@joanofarc6402]

Absolutely needed overview here. Thank you Naval college for providing us with balanced information!

[@MyMomSaysImKeen]

The biggest concern I have is the rampant xenophobia that is occurring right now. For instance, at the paragliding academy where I teach we had to expel a student today for pointing & loudly exclaiming how odd it was that 95% of the class are Chinese, Russian, Iranian, Saudi, Qatari, & Venezuelan ex-patriates

[@glennmitchell9107]

Why is that a reason to expel the student? Is it not odd that any class is 95% expatriates?

[@alex-ff1mp]

seams quite xenophobic from your part to expel a minority student.

[@dwightchaos9449]

Op? No response to the comments regarding your xenophobia of expelling a student?

[@delta6335]

"unfortunately, it [the wall] was rather successful for the Israelis. WTF!

[@arlmondgcalcutt6562]

The second speaker stressed rule of law & human rights - laws do not apply to just one side in a conflict - human rights is important if you act like a human (Hamas doesn't seem to be)

[@timothywise9731]

These two people make a moral equivalency between raping and terrorizing innocent civilians with turning off power and water???? This is crazy!!!! They say that revenge is not a strategy, ignores the fact that the Soviets went on a revenge rampage on the Germans at the end of WWII and we know how that turned out....well, evidently except these two people.

[@Cats_on_a_keyboard]

Turning off power and water for a large group of people is akin to killing a significant portion of them, as people need food, water, healthcare, etc. to survive. In many of the biggest genocides in history deprivation of things required to live was the biggest killer.

[@nicolejones4707]

1. Turning off food and water is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, and effects all civilians, innocent of not. 2. Revenge is not an effective strategy. Germans invaded Russia and got their asses kicked. Russia was not "going on a tirade of revenge." You'll notice that Russia and Germany are separate countries and one does not rule the other.

[@error5202]

Looks like they went waaaaay past that bud

[@jamesburke3803]

Thanks for the comments. I started listening, then wondered if it would be a pro Palestinian lecture, or an analysis of this struggle from a US strategic perspective. Making this about Israeli "settlements" contrasted with Palestinian "resistance" it becomes clear that it is the former, so I won't waste my time listening to this. I can get the same thing from countless other Pro Palestinian mouthpieces. Too bad. I was hoping for something interesting.....

[@jim9930]

@jamesburke3803 There are three 'rains' described in the bible. Rain is a period of time when God pours out his Holy Spirit for a purpose. A: Early righteous rain. God chose Abram because he was 'the least among the people'. He promised to multiply his seed and that he would make a great nation. That included both Isaac, and Ishmael. Isaac's line went on to become the hebrews that went down to Egypt. They emerged as the ancient nation of Israel with the promise they would inherit the land under the condition of obedience. Ishmael remained in and around the land and became what we know today as arabs. The purpose of the early righteous rain was twofold - bring forth the bible, bring forth Jesus to make manifest his payment for sins at the foundation of the world. Israel rejected their king (disobedient) at the time of the cross. Therefore he destroyed them as a nation and they permanently lost 'chosen' status. B: Righteous rain. The church age from 33AD to 1988. The purpose was to teach all nations (spread the bible and find God's lost sheep among the nations). When ye see the fig tree in leaf, know that summer is nigh. The fig tree is the restored nation of Israel 1948, but only as a sign of the end times (Israel to this day is only a 'proverb and a byword' NOT the chosen people of God ). Notice God said 'in leaf' - no fruit! C: Latter rain. The corrupt churches were judged - turned over to Satan 1988 for their destruction. (tares bundled for the burning) 1994 - 2011 was the pure gospel going into all the world outside the dead churches to find the 'great multitude' (fullness of the gentiles be come in - ALL of God's elect saved). Ishmael's descendants are also included as promised. May 21, 2011 the beginning of judgement day on the world. The door to heaven was SHUT. Satan was deposed as ruler (by right of conquest) and the Lord Jesus Christ began ruling the nations as king of kings with a rod of iron. Rod of iron for the destruction of mankind and FEED MY SHEEP (teach the last of the young believers). Israel is still necessary as a sign for them. Sooo, there is the foundation for the present day Israeli/Palestinian situation. Forget all the ignorant nonsense the churches believe about a third temple and Jesus physically appearing on the mount of Olives. { Christ spoke in parables, and without a parable spake he not } Everything in the bible is parabolic to hide truth from the wicked! One of the unfortunate consequences of judgment day is God declared he would have judgement without mercy on them who showed no mercy. This is where it gets complex; how much of the Hamas raid was punishment on Israel for their unbelief? Certainly Hamas repeatedly rejected any two state solution and spent aid money for weapons of war. ( they absolutely have no guarantee from God to the land, Israel doesn't deserve it either, but they must be a sign ). Ishmael's promise extends to the 'land' of the new heaven and earth. NOT Gaza. Sooo, if the USA gets involved in God's judgements, or anybody else... ain't gonna work out well. And it shall come to pass in that day, a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor. Zechariah 14;13 'Tumult' = disbelief & confusion Division is the result for the destruction of mankind! ....have you followed world events lately? The Lord is known by the judgement which he executeth, the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah. Psalm 9;16 Fear, and the pit, and the snare are upon thee O inhabitant of the earth. Isaiah 24;17 1994 the command went forth (only the elect obey): Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean, and I will receive you. I Cor 6;17 -come out of the churches, come away from the world as much as possible (not our battle). They will destroy each other by design, and on purpose! spoiler alert: 'last day' = 2033 ( 17th day of 1st month ?? ) READ THE BOOK ! ...or should have

[@JCResDoc94]

*this was a gr8, fairly balanced, strategic analysis.* some forecasting, & US interest from a real-politik would have been nice, but on the whole good use of time. liked it. i feel as though i learned something. thr is always more to know. _JC

[@TruSeek4life]

It's a pretty balanced presentation and very informative, but her use of the word genocide is just wrong. The population of Gaza has gone up. In genocide it's destroying a population. Makes no sense.

[@MatthiasHoughton]

words don't matter anymore

[@kofferfischii]

Did it start in Ukraine?@@MatthiasHoughton

[@viciousv4966]

I’m not sure if she outright called it a genocide but she did call it a war crime.

[@nicolejones4707]

She didn't call it genocide, she called out specific war crimes such as turning off access to water and intentionally starving the population. Genocide is a very, very specific term and there's a reason she didn't use it.

[@nicolejones4707]

Sad to see so many comments coming in with preconceptions and calling the speakers biased without giving them a chance. Second speaker largely quoted and was coming from a scholarly genocide angle, of course it's going to have a lean. That's why we listen to people of various backgrounds with different expertise's. To turn it off because you don't like what she's saying is ignorant, shortsighted, and those who are calling her a "propogandist" should be ashamed for their inability to engage with scholarly debate. It's extremely scholarly, you just don't like their conclusions because they give human rights equal consideration, slightly less time wise even, than the political situation.

[@allenazar8609]

Also, why is it off the table, that Netanyahu knew about the attack and has the most to gain from a war with Gaza? What is the cost of a couple thousand Israelis if you devastate Gaza forever. That is a bargain and the speaker is wildly shortsighted.

[@sababan1226]

Many of the first speaker's points were generally correct, but with a significant lacking in the legal background to the conflict; however, she's also someone who it seems has little deep experience, or personal, 1st-hand experience in the area or the region itself (i.e. a cushy, silo-ed, 2nd-rate academic in this area). The 2nd lady framed her discussion as coming from the POV of genocide, but sounded more like an Twitter-educated apologist for Palestinians and attempted to put all of this onto Netanyahu when the vast majority of Israelis (including many Arabs, Muslims, Druze, Christians, and others) support the elimination of Hamas and (in their estimation) other Jihadist Islamic groups in Gaza and the West Bank. We as Americans can have our views about all of this and have our own personal biases., Our governments (as well as the vested interests which steer them under various elected Democratic and Republican "regimes" as Dr. Alvi might call them) may have different interests and policies depending on the administration in power. This may at times may make a deeper understanding of both historical and current facts and situational awareness more difficult (because of opacity in getting grounded factual and non-biased information during a military conflict as well as a global cyber and informational war takes place as well). It may even preclude our discussing these issues in a level-headed way since most of the people who have very strong opinions on these issues either have had those same opinions for many decades based on ethnic, religious, or political affiliation and biases, or have developed those strong opinions in the past few months because of emotional agit-prop (neither of which are really helpful to solving these types of conflicts). As someone who has a significant background and experience in the historical, political, academic, and public diplomacy realms in this conflict, neither of these two presenters have the cache that I would like to see presenting these issues. They have strong opinions ungrounded in the very complex reality on the ground. The former was much better and didn't attempt to hide behind a framework of genocide against only the Israelis (with neither mentioning the genocide committed by Hamas against other Palestinians who refused their Islamist strategy and tactics, killing anyone who disagrees). Sadly, there is genocide occurring all over the world and much of it is being missed because this conflict is presented in such a factually-incorrect, binary, and obtrusive manner. Such is the nature of political theater in the age of mass information. One thing they taught us well in Washington D.C.: never pay attention to the politics, pay attention to the policies, legislation, case law, etc. The latter speaker focused on and presented as if she were someone who's very caught up in the Twitter-sphere and news-feeds she so carefully and admittedly "officiates." If this is reflection of the scholarship of our armed forces at the highest level in one of the least-opaque conflicts over the past 100+ years, it's no wonder we make such monumental mistakes in the theater of war, the battlefield, and political theaters throughout the world, and in our own country.

[@viciousv4966]

Any Israeli hostage speaking out against Israel cannot be considered serious. How can you rule out coersion or Stockholm syndrome.

[@davedanny9053]

ISREAL HAS NO CHOICE ISREAL MUST TAKE CARE OF ITS PEOPLE ❤

[@jameswelsh3433]

36:30 Israel is not “bombing indiscriminately.” Talk about lies being perpetrated. Deliberately positioning your military assets in and around hospitals and schools is a war crime. Israel doesn’t do that. Hamas does it, deliberately, to ensure that if Israel strikes those military targets, it will also cause non military casualties. That is why such practices are war crimes. Israel has been warning residents of Gaza to flee the north, but Hamas won’t let them leave because it doesn’t want to lose their human shields.

[@davedanny9053]

GOD LOVES ISREAL JESUS LOVES ISREAL JESUS WILL COME BACK TO ISREAL ❤

[@nicolejones4707]

buddy have you ever met a Jewish person? They're not that big on Jesus.

[@allenazar8609]

This whole thing misses the point. You can't fight a middle-eastern war with western values.

[@MFN.Starboy]

The second half of this became a woke morality lecture instead of a strategic overview lol 🚮 🚮🚮