Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Israel Must Respond to Militant Islam with Overwhelming Force

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Israel Must Respond to Militant Islam with Overwhelming Force

On July 12, 2006, Lebanese fighters perpetrated an act of war against Israel when they fired rockets into Israeli territory and kidnapped two IDF soldiers. In the face of such a brazen and unprovoked attack, it is a government's moral responsibility to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives of its citizens. Israel was well within its right to respond militarily and demand the return of its soldiers.

Arabs throughout the Middle East greatly feared the Israeli response. Hezbollah was widely criticized for awakening the sleeping Zionist giant. At first, the Israeli government threatened to respond with overwhelming force. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the Lebanese action "an act of war," and promised a " very painful and far-reaching response." The head of Israel's Northern Command Udi Adam said, "this affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon. Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." As rockets began to streak across the border onto Israel towns, Israeli army radio declared that the army would "totally destroy any village from which missiles are fired toward Israel."

Israel was challenged to follow through on its promises. Hezbollah guerillas embedded themselves in the civilian population, fired rockets from populated areas, and disguised themselves as civilians. In several reported cases, Islamists blocked village exits to prevent residents from leaving combat zones, maximizing civilian death. International pressure began to mount against Israel. On July 20, after a report claimed that 60 civilians were killed in a single attack, Israel agreed to halt air strikes for 48 hours. The United States began to push Israel towards a fast resolution.

Thereafter, even as Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets across the border, Israeli forces were careful not to inflict significant damage on non-combatants. This hampered Israel's ability to fight the war effectively. The army never followed through on its promise to "totally destroy" villages from which rockets were fired.

Israel finally agreed to a cease fire on August 14, even though it had not accomplished its two stated objectives for victory: recovering the kidnapped soldiers, and ejecting Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah was widely regarded as the winner of the conflict. On September 22, thousands of supporters gathered in Beirut to hear Hezbollah leader Nasrallah openly declare his country's "divine and strategic victory" against Israel.

This outcome was worse than if Israel had done nothing, because now supporters of militant Islam have rallied around the victorious Hezbollah. Civilians in Lebanon still must fear the strong arm of militant Islam, but no longer fear the harsh reprisal of Israel. Moderate Lebanese have no incentive to oppose Hezbollah; to do so would mean certain death. Al Queda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations around the globe now see that the tactic of holding ones own civilian population hostage is effective.

When the United States faced a similar threat during WWII, we achieved victory by convincing the people of Japan that we would destroy their entire country if necessary to defend our own. We settled for nothing less than unconditional surrender. When Japan would not yield, we unleashed a devastating attack on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though less widely publicized, similar tactics were used against Nazi Germany. Today, US actions in WWII are often criticized, but witness the long term results of this ruthless approach. It is widely conceded that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American lives.

Israel should learn from this example. Islamic Terrorists cannot be reasoned with, and they will not stop until Israel is completely destroyed. Israel must recognize that the only way to stop an enemy aggressor is to respond with overwhelming force. If they are not willing to do so, then Muslims around the world are right: Israel has forfeited its right to exist.

--Dan Edge

[Note: This article was written for my OAC writing class, and as such it is OAC property. I reprint it here with permission from OAC. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the OAC or the ARI.]

Edited by dan_edge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Note: This article was written for my OAC writing class, and as such it is OAC property. One cannot reprint the article with the OAC's consent.]
I suggest you check those assumptions. If they are valid, I'll be happy to delete your post if you think you've violated their property rights. Otherwise, the content of this post is your property, and if you send me $100, I'll give you the basics of IP morality and law. Or, take my word for free. Also, I agree with your analysis. Except in one important matter -- the bottom line. Israel has not forfeited its right to exist. The current government may, however, have made it more difficult for Israel to survive in the long run.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I did not base the disclaimer on an assumption. Before starting classes, one must sign a waiver stating that material produced for the class belongs to OAC. I got permission from OAC to post my article wherever I like, provided I add a disclaimer like the one I put at the end of the article.

I'm glad you like the article. I got a good grade on it :worry:

The phrasing I used at the end, that Israel "forfeited its right to exist," is not intended literally. I see how it is unclear.

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging by the post I think what is said here is that the overwhelming force would locate and eliminate all villages supporting the Party of Allah, thereby eliminating the threat from the north and lessening the power of such groups to harm Israel over the long term. My only question is how that would change greatly change the issue over the long term. In Lebannon, a country only in the same sense the USSR was a republic, geograghy, tribelism and proximity to Syria rule out any permanant solution unless a strong central government emerges in Lebannon (which will not happen) or Israel declares everything south of Beirut a "no hut zone" (which will not happen).

To qoute Israeli intelligence officials (and I might be able to give out the video file), the arab state is no longer an effective institution, the future of the middle east belongs to radical Islam whose inexorable focus is centered on the Levant. Radical Islamic groups will slowly take over the countries surrounding Israel leading to the first truly complete war for survival (not being surrounded by determined combatants in '47, '67 or '73). Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebannon are relatively powerless to stop its advance. Given that Israel can not fight them on all fronts at one time and the suicidal nature of the opponant any kind of effective anti-islamic blitzkrieg is not going to happen. It is my beleif that radical Islam is fast approaching the critical mass needed in the Levant to make an even combat with Israel for control of the region.

Israel lost the battle in Lebannon and with more time, resources and casulaties may have won and its loss is a blow to Israel and the free world. The battle's overall signifigance in the general war however I would say is low.

Nor is it a war Israel can win alone. Ultimatly this war for Israel's survival comes down to the arab world itself. The will and resources needed to eliminate the Israelis will grow out of the arab world with the IDF being a minor deterrent to radical Islam's aims. The war can only be effectively won by continuing the campaign for democracy in Iraq, cutting down the influence of Iran (the key front in this whole affair) and restrengthening of arab secular law in Egypt and Syria.

I agree however that Israel should have fought in Lebannon harder. Despite Hezbollah's unexpected ability to counter the israelis effectively and the vietnam-like atmosphere of the conflict Lebannon now stands essentially as an Iran-in-the-womb because of the defeat.

Edited, redacted an overstatement. Which I can do?

Edited by Shol'Va
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

To qoute Israeli intelligence officials (and I might be able to give out the video file), the arab state is no longer an effective institution, the future of the middle east belongs to radical Islam whose inexorable focus is centered on the Levant. Radical Islamic groups will slowly take over the countries surrounding Israel leading to the first truly complete war for survival (not being surrounded by determined combatants in '47, '67 or '73). Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebannon are relatively powerless to stop its advance. Given that Israel can not fight them on all fronts at one time and the suicidal nature of the opponant any kind of effective anti-islamic blitzkrieg is not going to happen. It is my beleif that radical Islam is fast approaching the critical mass needed in the Levant to make an even combat with Israel for control of the region.

Israel lost the battle in Lebannon and with more time, resources and casulaties may have won and its loss is a blow to Israel and the free world. The battle's overall signifigance in the general war however I would say is low.

...

I contend that radical Islam is utterly powerless without government support. Islamic militants become a significant threat when they have at their disposal the range of resources available only to governments. Hezbollah fighters did not produce the rockets and rocket launchers that they fired on Israel. These were provided by nations. Without the funding and weapons provided by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah would merely be a group of angry, impotent dipshits sitting in the middle of the desert.

That is the first principle that must be understood before any useful military action can be taken: that terrorists are impotent without government support. Once this principle is understood, the solution is relatively simple: end states that sponsor terrorism. Dr. John Lewis wrote an excellent article about this.

I disagree that Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebannon are making any effort to "stop [the] advance" of militant Islam. These countries are openly supporting militant Islam. They must be shown that if they continue support terrorism, then they will be destroyed.

--Dan Edge

Edited by dan_edge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that Egypt and Jordan are openly supporting militant Islam? Both have diplomatic relations with Israel and actively fight terrorism in their own borders. They are both somewhat authoritarian countries, but that doesn't mean that they support terrorism against their neighbors.

I'll grant you that Egypt is sliding into Islamism, but it's not there yet. As for Jordan...I have no idea why you would think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moose,

I was referring primarily to Lebanon and Syria, but certainly there is widespread ideological support for militant Islam in Egypt and Jordan. These countries may not pose a security risk now, but if states like Syria, Iran, and Lebanon are not put in check, then the rest of the Middle East may become just as bad.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...