NEWSROOM
Commentary Articles
In The News
News Releases
Experts



Media Inquiries

Kim Cloidt
Director of Marketing & Communications
(510) 632-1366 x116
(202) 725-7722 (cell)
Send Email

Robert Ade
Communications Manager
(510) 632-1366 x114
Send Email


Subscribe



Commentary
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook

Contribute
Your participation will advance liberty. Join us as an Independent Institute member.



Contact Us
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428

510-632-1366 Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
Send us email


Interested in working with us?  Click here for more information.

Commentary

Israeli-Arab War: Terrorism on Both Sides


     
 Print 

By declaring that “Israel has right to defend itself,” the Bush administration is tacitly approving Israel’s pounding Lebanon into rubble and reinvading Gaza. Since 9/11, the administration has tried to cast its “war on terror” as broadly as possible, including an invasion of Iraq and the labeling of groups that focus their attacks only on Israel—Hamas and Hezbollah—as terrorists. And these groups do oftentimes engage in monstrously unacceptable acts of terrorism—that is, by striking innocent civilians to get them to pressure their governments to change policy. But sometimes these groups undertake legitimate acts of war. Yet the world’s most powerful governments—led by the United States—seem to deem any actions by these groups as terrorism. At the same time, they avoid that label for any actions taken by other governments, such as the disproportionate measures now being undertaken by Israel.

The G-8 nations, at their summit in St. Petersburg, concluded that Hamas and Hezbollah started the war by Hamas’ rocket attacks in Gaza and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and Hezbollah’s abduction of two more Israeli soldiers. The G-8 leaders declared, “These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict. The extremists must immediately halt their attacks.” But contrary to press coverage in the United States, the actual time line of events indicates that Israel attacked first and also committed the first acts of terrorism.

“Terrorism” is a term that was originally coined during the French Revolution to apply to acts by the revolutionary government. Over history, governments, because of their vastly greater resources and thus killing capacity, have killed far more civilians in acts of terrorism than rag-tag groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. For example, although not excusing Nazi and North Vietnamese terror tactics, the U.S. government—by aiding in the firebombing of Dresden toward the end of World War II when the Nazis were clearly defeated and by the indiscriminate bombing of North Vietnam in the Linebacker II air offensive in 1972—has committed acts of terrorism. And Israel regularly dispenses “collective punishment”—as it is now in Lebanon and Gaza—that should be labeled “terrorism,” but isn’t.

Even if Israel is given the benefit of the doubt for an explosion in Gaza on June 9 that killed a family of seven (witnesses blame Israeli artillery but Israel denies causing it), Israel clearly killed 11 Palestinians, including nine civilians, in Gaza on June 13 using a missile strike on a van. In the latter case, the Israelis would argue that they were going after “terrorists” in the van and that the civilians just happened to be in the way. But Hamas could claim that its later June 25 killing of two Israeli soldiers and capturing another was an attack on legitimate targets in retaliation for the first two Israeli actions. So the capture of the Israeli soldier by Hamas, on which the G-8 leaders and world press have focused, was not the beginning of the chain of events that have led to the current war.

If hitting military targets is not terrorism, then Israel, not Hamas—at least in this episode—was also the first to use terror tactics. In the ensuing days after the soldier’s capture, Israel began invading Gaza in a grossly disproportionate action. Israel destroyed power stations, bridges, and other infrastructure in Gaza. This was clearly collective punishment aimed at inflicting pain on Palestinian civilians. For example, any time power is shut off to hospitals, some patients die. Thus, this response has to be labeled a terrorist act, rather than a defensive one as President Bush has claimed.

Furthermore, such an over-the-top response undermined, rather than improved, Israeli security. Even if Hamas and Hezbollah do oftentimes resort to acts of terror, what terrorists crave most is publicity. Israel could have denied it to them by quietly using stealthy special operations forces, killing or capturing leading figures in Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s excessive measures, conducted mainly by a weak leader to show the folks at home that he was tough, merely showed Hezbollah in Lebanon that they could get back into the limelight by conducting a similar raid on July 12 that would kill eight Israeli soldiers and capture two more. Again, this would seem to be a legitimate military target, as was Hezbollah’s launching of Katyusha rockets and mortar shells toward Israeli military posts in the disputed Shebaa Farms area of Israel. Hezbollah strayed into terror acts, however, when launching rockets and mortar shells at the Israeli border town of Shlomi on that same day and in the subsequent rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns and cities. It launched the latter inaccurate rocket salvos en masse only after Israel began committing terrorist acts on Lebanon by bombing power stations, roads, bridges, gas stations, and fuel depots; displacing thousands of Lebanese residents and shutting the country off from the outside world using a naval blockade and bombing the ports, the international airport and the only road out of the country to Damascus, Syria. Since Israel withdrew its occupation forces from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah had exhibited restraint, directing its increasingly infrequent offensives against the disputed border area at Shebaa Farms. Once again, Israel’s disproportionate action of holding a whole country responsible for a group’s capturing and killing of a few of its soldiers has now triggered a full-blown war that has endangered citizens of northern Israel. Besides, as conservative commentator Pat Buchanan points out, over an 18-year period, Israel couldn’t defeat and disarm Hezbollah, so it is ridiculous for Israel to hold the weak government of Lebanon responsible for doing so.

The total civilian casualties on each side also indicate that Israel’s attacks have strayed into terrorism. Only 4 Israeli civilians have been killed versus about a hundred in Lebanon and another hundred in Gaza.

No one can excuse genuine acts of terror by rag-tag groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, especially indiscriminate rocket attacks on towns and cities. But neither should great powers, especially the United States, look the other way while a government—read Israel—systematically kills many more civilians under the guise of a disingenuous claim of offensive self-defense.


Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.


  New from Ivan Eland!
RECARVING RUSHMORE (UPDATED EDITION): Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty
Taking a distinctly new approach, Ivan Eland profiles each U.S. president from Washington to Obama on the merits of his policies and whether those strategies contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty. This ranking system is based on how effective each president was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.






Home | About Us | Blogs | Issues | Newsroom | Multimedia | Events | Publications | Centers | Students | Store | Donate

Product Catalog | RSS | Jobs | Course Adoption | Links | Privacy Policy | Site Map
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook
Copyright 2014 The Independent Institute