The world, for the last one month, has been focused on the air strike-dominated Israeli operations against Lebanon. Though it varies from one source to another, the death toll of the operation has been increasing multilaterally day by day. The operation, which Israel initiated to combat terror, is intended to protect its territory and rescue its two captives, and the death toll has passed one thousand in the 28th day of the offensive. If war is the motive, then we must say that those who have heard the number “one thousand” are not surprised to hear it. While the cause of the conflict is cited as the rescue of two soldiers, the operation has been continuing disproportionately in the form of dominant air strikes in the territory of another country, and therefore, there are questions to be answered.
However, after these offensives, there is still no talk of infiltration and rescue operations of special teams focusing on the rescue of the captured soldiers based on intelligence nor is there talk of the heavy losses inflicted on the allegedly targeted Hamas and Hizbullah militants.
Yet, there’s much talk over the million Lebanese refugees, the thousand plus dead, and the bombings of highways, bridges, houses, industrial facilities, and power plants in the Israeli offensive which has been continuing for almost a month.
As the Israeli offensive has reached the end of its first month, the Minister of Justice Haim Ramon stated that the operations would continue until 12 August. After Ramon’s statements, the Lebanese PM Fuad Siniora made a very painful statement on the recent situation of his country: 900 Lebanese were dead, 80 of them Hizbullah militants, and 300 of them children (figures as of the 24th day of the offensive). 3.000 people were injured. The economic loss due to the offensive is more than 2 billion US Dollars. One million Lebanese have left their homes, and some have fled to safer countries.
In all wars or combats against terrorism, there will always remain some contested practices, but as Siniora’s statements are carefully assessed, it is evident that the complexity in Israeli operations is beyond the common mistakes. Israel’s arguments should inadvertently be examined.
Hypothesis 1: Israel Conducts All Offensives to Ensure Its National Security.
It is understood that Israeli authorities are acting in self-defense and trying to combat terror within the framework of the preventive strike doctrine. The first rule in this doctrine is to neutralize the aggressor before it finds the opportunity to strike, but there is a significant contrast between what is said and what is done. Despite Hizbullah being defined as “the aggressor” or “the potential aggressor”, considerable divergences have been made on the path to Israel completing its goal.
Considering the most exaggerated calculations, as multiple sources mention, only 10 % of the thousand people killed are Hizbullah militants. In short, there is a 90 % deviation in the proverbial target, and the rest of the toll consists of those who must be protected the most: the old, women and children. It is also a clear reality that the one million Lebanese who were displaced are not Hizbullah militants either.
It is misleading to assume that the deviations in Israel’s targets are due to mistakes. The frequency of the blatant mistakes committed by Israel, which has infamous intelligence agencies and resources, cannot be described as the expected mistakes during war.
Ostensibly, the Israeli PM’s policies of suppressing and punishing the supporters of Hizbullah have been expanded to include all Lebanese population, and the frightened and targeted population is deliberately forced to migrate. As a matter of fact, the Israeli authorities admit this reality in their statements and clearly state that they will eliminate the public support which Hizbullah relies upon by forcing people to migrate. Israel not only targets the human population, but also the Lebanese economy, infrastructure, transportation, and energy resources. It is obvious that these targets are not terrorists’ caves or bunkers.
Hypothesis 2: These Offensives are Based on the Legitimate and Proportionate Use of Force to Ensure Israel’s National Security
Indisputably, Israel has the right and authorization to use self-defense as much as every other state. Israel frequently becomes the conflict centre of the Middle East because of its struggle against groups which it defines as terrorists. Hizbullah, which has an important place among these kinds of groups that utilize violence as a method, is not included in the EU’s and UN’s lists of terrorist organizations. However, terror clearly takes place as one of the methods used by Hizbullah and the organization’s radical discourse is not a secret. Theoretically, Israel has the right to use force against groups if they use terror as a method.
However, Israel’s impasse begins at this very point. Imagine a state which adopts similar methods of groups which it defines as using violent and unruly methods. Imagine that although that state continuously speaks of the destruction of fascism and its mercilessness, it practices the same concepts. For example, Human Rights Watch states that Israel intentionally bombs civilians in certain cases in Lebanon, and the organization notes that some operations constitute a war crime. Clearly, the organization’s statements illustrate Israel’s assertion that Hizbullah uses Lebanese civilians as shields do not justify the Israel’s “systematic failure” in differentiating between civilians and militants. The statement explains that “this failure can not be defined as accident and the blame can not be attributed to Hizbullah. In some cases, these attacks constitute a war crime. In some cases, it was determined that Israel deliberately targets civilians.”
Human Rights Watch argues that Israel’s struggle against terrorism is not confined to hunting terrorists, and at times, Israel pushed beyond this confinement on purpose. Israel bases its combat against terror on the same value system of groups it is fighting against instead of placing the values of the civilized world in which it calls to take side with itself. Imagine that the party which conducts air strikes is Hizbullah and the one which fires rockets is Israel, and reverse the roles and uniforms. Which side seems to be closer to the values developed by the civilized world for centuries? Israel extends its targets from Lebanon to as far as Iran in its fight against terror. The enemies and dangerous targets as defined by Israel not only include some groups but also states. According to the statement of Benyamin Netanyahu, the former PM of Israel, to the BBC, danger will inevitably cover the entire world unless these fanatic communities and states, from Lebanon to Iran, are defeated. However, it is impossible to talk of an Israeli state which pays attention to these warnings, methods, and values of the civilized world in which it calls for help against terror. It is not reasonable to ask for the support of the civilized world by duplicating the Hizbullah’s methods.
Israel’s biggest rival in its fight against terror is itself. Israel provokes the anti-Israeli front to expand daily as a result of its strategy and mentality of struggle. It is impossible to say that Israel was successful in terms of propaganda and the control of territories as a result of the operations initiated a month ago. Hizbullah, which Israel has warned the world of its evils, has become stronger in the last month thanks to the strategies used by Israel to fight against terror. Moreover, the UN’s credibility and authority to enforce sanctions on the nuclear enrichment program of Iran, which gains ground in terms of a power balance in the region, is becoming nonsensical because of Israel’s terror fighting policies. Unless Israel changes its policies to fight against terror, it will become difficult for it to defend its territories and citizens, and therefore, it will have to pay a heavier price for its security.
Hypothesis 3: Israel is Trying to Make the Western Civilization and the Region More Secure.
The operations of Israel against Hamas and Hizbullah, with the words of terrorism expert Ercan Citlioglu, are to declare war against groups which are defined as enemies in another country’s territory. Meaning, Israel has de facto declared war on Palestine and Lebanon. In addition to the “preventive strike doctrine” adopted by Israel, and accurately noted by Citlioglu, the new dimension of this doctrine legitimizes the declaration of war on unwanted groups or administrations based in another independent country. As a result, this means that the new understanding for the use of force by the mighty countries, in terms of their self-interests by ignoring the international system and the sovereignty rights of other countries, will dominate international relations. Hence, it is understood that the UN and relevant organizations, which have kept their silence and practiced ineffectiveness in defining a state’s use of force against another, will have no role in establishing order in the new world disorder. We witness the first examples of this incapability in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon, and it is likely that this afflicting mentality will be an example to the entire world starting from the Middle East. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the organizations of the 20th Century to respond to the 21st Century. The world’s communities are shifting to a state of anarchy, beginning from the Middle East.
The most painful result of Israel’s war is the number of civilian casualties and this affects the regional security. On the other hand, Israel’s PM Olmert, in his statement to the Times of England, asked “they don’t have uniforms so that we can understand who is innocent. One million Israelis are in shelters since 22 days. How would you react if it happened in Europe?” Continuing with, “Can you imagine the English living like that? How would England react in such a case?” Olmert asserts that this is an unavoidable choice and an inevitable destiny. However, it is known that Israel’s intelligence has the capacity to carry out secret and direct operations against militants. In an atmosphere where the civilians, especially the children and the old are killed, the isolation of moderate, pro-peace governments and domination of radicalism as the only options become inevitable. In this context, Israel’s attacks provide the greatest contribution to the radicalization of the Middle East. Israel’s punishment of masses by assuming that they are supporting Hamas and Hizbullah aids nothing but the expansion of the grassroots of these organizations, and in turn, solidifies the violence-dominated structure of the Middle East.
Conclusion
Israel’s operation was not aimed solely at rescuing its two soldiers. In fact, Israel aims to pacify radical groups like Hizbullah and Hamas, and at least prevent these organizations to act as a hope and an alternative for the peoples of the region. These organizations intend to integrate within experimental democracies which have gained momentum in the Middle East, and are demonstrating an approach which subordinate their military images. They integrate into the political system whether they win the elections or achieve significant victories, and they increase their shares within the process. When we consider these developments, Israel’s performance and its policy of “the power of force” increase the popularity of Hamas and Hizbullah.
Israel must realize that it will not succeed through its policies of violence, which it devised and which it imported a significant portion from terrorist organizations. The chaotic structure created by Israel’s national security model has been causing harms not only to Israel, but also to the Middle East and perhaps the entire world. Therefore, it is clear that Israel’s national security model, which will possibly draw Israel, the region and the world into chaos, is in impasse. This model makes radicalism the only, and most likely, option by excluding all functional and inclusive alternatives.
Translated by: Khushbu Shah and A. Noyan Özkaya
A Time Collapse in the Kurdish Problem
