Final Topic Question: Answer and Accumulated Research Links
It is no secret that Israel’s defense policies involve many controversial tactics. Chief among them are practices such as targeted killing and the ‘eye for an eye’ policy. These concepts have been aggressively employed for decades in its ongoing struggle with subversive terrorist elements within and surrounding the nation of Israel. International opinion has largely condemned the use of such tactics, but United States citizens, politicians, and policies still overwhelmingly support Israel regardless of the controversy of its actions. With this in mind, should the United States government, starting with the Obama administration, take a firmer stand on Israel’s defense strategies?
Israel has been in numerous conflicts since the first years of its foundation in the wake of the atrocities of World War II. Curiously, however, it was not war with the Egyptians, the Lebanese, or all of the neighboring countries allied together that has caused Israel the most trouble over the years. With the advent of terrorist groups like Black September and the Palestinian Liberation Front in the early to mid 1970’s, and much later Hizbollah and Hamas, Israel met the deadliest threat to their continued freedom and prosperity as a nation. The international community has condemned the tactics and actions taken by these terrorist groups, but it is the Israeli method of retaliation against attacks on its citizens that has recently drawn the most criticism.
Perhaps the most widely held opinion internationally of Israel is its use of excessive force. This concept is best illustrated in the confrontations with Lebanon in the 80’s, late 90’s, and 2006. Alan M. Dershowitz championed Israel when he wrote the article Israel’s Policy is Perfectly ‘Proportiante.’ On all occasions, Israel used the impressive might of its army’s to retaliate against terror threats. Unfortunately, while a terrorist group lacks the credibility to be decried for killing innocents, Israel as a nation can be criticized when it inadvertently harms civilians. In all these struggles, Israel was forced months later to withdraw without achieving its primary objectives. No one can or will deny that Israel has a right to defend itself, but in too many cases her hands are tied. Israel cannot afford to let groups like Hizbollah and Hamas sit back and launch rockets from the relative safety of their host nations, and something must be done to stop it. However, it is not wrong to say that Israel has at times met a pinprick with a hammer. An article that reflects on how Israel’s use of force is crippling the Palestinian people and their way of life is They are war crimes! What has been/is happening in Palestine by Aisa Kiyosue, a Japanese born Ph.D. candidate who uses a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal to mix a variety of sources and first hand accounts in order to publicize the Palestinian plight. The United States would be wise to advise Israel to use more discretionary restraint when defending itself. Otherwise they appear in the media to be just as brutish and violent as the terrorists themselves, ultimately undermining the possibility of multi-lateral international peace talks.
A fascinating element of Israel’s policy involves their answer to the claims of excessive force. According to Amos Malka’s Israel and Asymmetrical Deterrence, deterrence is a military term used to describe a nation’s threat or perceived threat of retaliation after an act of war, terrorism, or violence. For example, the United States has deterrence with China firstly because a strong military, a large nuclear arsenal, and the promise that any conflict will be equally as deadly to one nation as the other. Likewise, China has the same deterrence with the United States. Thus a static system occurs where neither nation is inclined to attack the other outright for an indiscretion and must resort to diplomacy instead. Israel claims that its desire to use full military invasions instead of key targeted military operations is to restore the deterrence that it historically held in the region with its overwhelming military superiority. For a while, this line of thinking seems rather logical. But historically speaking, Israel has enjoyed only relatively short periods of peace and stability directly after they fought a war, battle, or skirmish. The irony of Israeli deterrence is that it has effectively ended the threat of a full-scale invasion by any of the neighboring countries, but given rise to violent terrorist groups that welcome the negative attention Israel gets when it inadvertently kills an innocent Palestinian or Lebanese with a smart missile. The Paradox of Israeli Power by Uri Bar-Joseph seems to support the idea that the theory of deterrence is not compatible with the situation, the opposing force in this case not being a sovereign nation. At first glance, citing restoration of deterrence for motivation is an adequate excuse, but the United States should examine the facts and discuss how there is no military great enough to deter a suicide bomber on a holy mission.
Targeted killing is essentially a more politically correct way of saying ‘assassination.’ Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing by Steven R. David begins by seemingly decrying the use of this tactic by Israel. As he furthers his point; however, the reader realizes that David thinks that targeted killings are an important alternative to the large-scale military invasions that have effectively destroyed Israel’s reputation internationally. This is a tactic that even the United States has taken a stand against, but David provides a compelling point. There was a swirl of controversy in 2004 when Israel ‘target killed’ Palestinian cultural leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin. The international community was in an uproar and despite the United States historic support of Israel’s actions; they condemned the act as well. These events were well described in Jonathan Rauch’s Like it or not, Israel’s War with Hamas is America’s, too. The assassination; however, was remarkably similar to actions taken by the Clinton administration in 1998 against a then considerably less well-known threat, Osama bin-Laden. The United States ought to be careful condemning Israel when they also must point the finger at themselves.
So, should the United States government take a firmer stand on Israel’s defense strategies? Yes, if a lasting regional peace is something that the United States is interested in. The issue of Middle East peace is undeniably complex, but if the United States continues to enable Israel to perpetrate acts of violence for acts of terrorism, we are simply allowing them to bury deeper and deeper the hopes and dreams of justice, peace, and security for both Palestine and Israel. As an interviewee Professor Mel Gurtov put it, “Israel’s policies just serve to [continue the cycle of violence] and sabotage future peace negotiations.”
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
-
Recent
-
Links
-
Archives
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (6)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
