Who Won the War? Understanding the Enemy
In every conflict, being a military
one, or the enhancement of a political dispute [it was once stated by an 18th
century British diplomat that diplomacy is a continuation of a military
conflict and a military conflict is a
natural result of diplomacy], a family
quarrel or a hostile takeover of a company, a basic principle is “to
understand the enemy”, the disputant, the other side. This understanding is divided to two. How does
side A understands side B, and - not less important – what does side A know of side B’s understanding of side A.
As, if side A will know how side B understands it, side A will be able to conceal weaknesses, to overcome misunderstandings or
to challenge complaints and demands
issued by side B.
In 1957 it was the ousted US ambassador to Indonesia John Allison who
warned – following the failed attempt to topple President Sukarno that Foster
and Allan Dallas “did not know Asian well and were always inclined
to judge them by Western eyes”. The same
was true during the first stages of World War II, it was true in Korea and in
Vietnam.
When Israel vacated Gaza, government
spokesmen from Sharon to Olmart claimed that the move was not a “withdrawal”
from Gaza, but a strategic move based on reasons that were never
disclosed. There was not a single man in
Gaza who believed the Israelis. All –
but literary – all - believed
that the terrorist attacks had their results. Terror forced Israel to withdraw. This was a repetition of a similar mistake from the past. When Z.H.L. withdrew from Lebanon in the year
2000 abandoning the Christian Sadal militia to the mercy of its worst enemies, Ehud Barak – the one who planned the hasty
withdrawal, tried to explain its
strategic importance and that Israel was withdrawing out of strength. No one
in Lebanon believed Barak. All agreed
with Hizzbullah’s presentation that Z.H.L. withdrew because Hizzbullaha
was shedding its blood. Whose position
is accurate is an irrelevant question.
What does the enemy think, is. How does the enemy’s thinking effect its movement is the
important question. Indeed, Hamas and Hizzbulaha remembered what
Winston Churchill stated after the withdrawal from Dunkirk; “Wars are not won by evacuations”. It was true then, It is true now.
“Death and Life are in the power of the
tongue” wrote King Solomon. Today we are facing an exploding
mountain. At the outset in Gaza, and not
to far away, in Lebanon as well. True,
Palestinians on the border are fleeing, frightened from the day Z.H.L. will
respond. But what does He who is a
member of Hamas or Islamic Jihad think
about shelling Shderoth in the Nagev. He claims that this is “a wining answer”. Is terror winning? So far it is. Even the representatives of State of Israel declared in a recent Supreme Court hearing
that we cannot defend Shderoth with surrounding walls.
Many listen to this message of the representative of the
State of Israel in court, and not only within the court chambers. The State admits that terror demoralizes
civil life in Israel, and Israel, with all its might cannot reply
properly. The fact is that terror
organizations are arming themselves day and night, we witness new ammunition, Frug
missiles, new Katyushas and many shahids, all smuggled through
the Philadelphia route. True, the
average Palestinian suffers economically. But his “brothers” in the Hamas and other organizations do not
care. As Israeli economical pressure
effects “life embroidery” but not “terror embroidery”.
Z.H.L
does make an effort not to hurt civilians. Mistakes due occur. Painful and
tragic ones. Alas, Hamas – as Hezbollah
- care not for civilians in neither side
of the border. The scuds and Katushas
are not aimed at military bases but at
center of cities, the scud and Katushas are not launched and stored at
military bases, but at and from
center of cities and villages.
Can
ZHL - or for that matter, any army - conduct a war against terrorist organizations,
now claiming to be “legitimate political entity'' – if Israel’s civilians are
exposed to risks of death and destruction, while we “pick” the terrorists one
by one?
The
choice is “Machiavellistic”. The US launched atom bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, as it refused the absorbed the expected casualties to the armed forces if the US continued to
fight Japan “conventionally”; The US
bombed Hanoi as it failed in its efforts
to fight the Vietcong and The North Vietnamese army; [this, although both
militias did not fight from centers of civilian concentrations]. We do not have to elaborate on the French
Legion’s behavior in Algiers; or the massive numbers of victims as a result of
Nato’s fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the large numbers of innocent
victims in Iraq and Afghanistan who fall victim to errors, to the bullet of
“the good guys”. A mistake of this US solder or this Royal Air Force
bombing.
But
I do not believe that History Books can testify about a violent conflicts in
which one side hides behind civilians, children and women, shooting at the
civilians of its opponent, the opponent does not reciprocate in the same
manner, yet, wins the war. True, customs
of war in the past differ from those of today, international law has
changed. But the law cannot apply to one
side only. The Islamic Jihad was not
created out of nothingness. Violence against Israel does not come from
space.
A terror organization cannot
survive without support from the
population [just witness the honor bestowed to the families of Shahids who blew
themselves in buses in Israel]. Study
the children’s programs and cartoons available on Palestinian television, where
the Shahid is the hero inviting imitation. If a television station broadcasts such barbarity, it should be destroyed. As long as the Palestinian in the streets of
Gaza considers the terrorist a
hero, he will support him. During all his wars – inclusive of the civil
was he conducted against Pompeii and his
party – Julius Caesar was a hero as he knew that the masses follow the
victorious. There is no difference
between Gaul and Gaza. When the Palestinians in Gaza will understand that Hamas loss, when he elects for himself leadership wishing
not to fight and destroy, but to develop
and enhance Gaza’s tremendous potential, this will be the time when Israel and
The Palestinians can make peace in dignity.
The Palestinians do have such leaders, alas they are threatens by
the “barbarians at the gate” .
The
support of terror, of fanaticism, must be uprooted – by force, if needs be. When ZHL abides by international law,
the Hamas understands it as a weakness. They openly refused to abide by the same law, threatening suicide
bombing, denying access to Gilad Shalit. And their thinking is what counts. Fighting terror with restriction will
encourage the terrorists and their supporters. We have to teach the Palestinian to convert his support of terror to
hatred of terror.
This
is difficult and painful. But if the
choice is the child in Shderot or the one in Gaza, it will have to be the one
in Gaza. We would not have to make the
choice had Hamas not launched 80[!] rockets in one day – as they did last
week. When the Palestinian in Gaza will
understand that supporting terror is worthless, we will all benefit. Most of all, he himself.
There
is a war. If we do not make it clear
like the sun of day, who is the winner, we will be the losers, and terror will
flourish. If we win, we will stop
sufferings, the Palestinian in the street of Gaza will stop suffering. Today he
cannot understand it, being washed with Islamic extremism. He will have to be taught the difficult and
painful way. And it is painful, even for
us.
Zally Jaffe
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה