The Israeli reactions to the Goldstone report on the Gaza war of January 2009 have focused, understandably, on its outrageous omissions and distortions and one-sided judgments, as well as on the moral corruption of the report's sponsor, the UN's Human Rights Commission. But the far-reaching strategic implications of the Goldstone report require no less urgent consideration.
If a large part of the international community endorses the report's conclusions and opts to put Israel on trial--symbolically or literally--the clear message to Israel will be the rescinding of its right to self-defense against Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are embedded in civilian populations. That will require a basic rethinking of Israel's current strategic policy of containing the terrorist enclaves on its northern and southern borders.
In the decades following the Six Day War, Israeli policy, upheld by successive Labor and Likud governments, was to deny terrorists a foothold along any Israeli border. That was, in part, the rationale behind Moshe Dayan's open bridges policy between Israel and Jordan in the 1970s, as well as Ariel Sharon's West Bank settlement drive and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. When that war soured, so did the appeal of the policy that inspired it.
Israel's two unilateral withdrawals--from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005--both resulted in the creation of terror enclaves on its borders, negating long-standing strategy. The policy of prevention was replaced by a policy of containment.
That policy of containment was expressed in the 2006 operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and by this year's operation against Hamas in Gaza. In both those mini-wars, Israel opted not to uproot the terrorist enclaves, hoping that the partial flexing of Israeli power would deter further aggression.
The Goldstone report may well mark the end of Israel's limited wars against terrorist groups. Israel cannot afford to continue to be drawn into mini-wars against terrorists hiding behind their own civilians to attack Israeli civilians, given that each such conflict inexorably draws the Jewish state one step closer toward pariah status. Limited victories on the battlefield are being turned into major defeats in the arena of world opinion.
That untenable situation may well leave Israel no choice but to return to the post-1967 policy of preventing altogether the presence of terror enclaves on its borders. Better, Israelis will argue, to deal decisively with the terror threat and brace for temporary international outrage than subject our legitimacy to constant attrition, even as the terrorist threat remains intact.
Israelis will be keenly watching the pace of Qassam rocket fire from Gaza for signs of an emboldened Hamas. If attacks do intensify--as they have sporadically in recent days--and the quiet achieved by the Gaza offensive is forfeited, the Israeli public will blame the Goldstone report. And Israelis' operative conclusions will likely lead to a less restrained response next time-- the opposite result Judge Richard Goldstone sought to achieve in his apparent attempt to deny Israel the right to self-defense.
Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor of The New Republic and a senior fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. This piece first appeared on the Adelson Institute website.
.jpg)
Print
COMMENTS (8)
What on earth is Halevi talking about? What is this "decisive" action of which he speaks? What can Israel do on its own that will end "the terrorist threat"?
What on earth is Halevi talking about? What is this "decisive" action of which he speaks? What can Israel do on its own that will end "the terrorist threat"?
It could retake control of Gaza. Not necessarily the optimal thing to do given the cost, but do-able. The possibility also exists with respect to southern Lebanon, although at much greater cost militarily and diplomatically. Yes, part of Labanon was "occupied" before, but the occupied portion was not sealed off from the rest of Lebanon which enabled a constant guerrilla war at great cost. The possibility of occupation is clearly what Halevi has in mind, or at least I think so. I doubt he is suggesting Israel would ever undertake the "Grozny strategy" of simply leveling the whole place at whatever cost to civilian life and limb. Russia can get away with that; Israel can't and wouldn't w ... view full comment
It could retake control of Gaza. Not necessarily the optimal thing to do given the cost, but do-able. The possibility also exists with respect to southern Lebanon, although at much greater cost militarily and diplomatically. Yes, part of Labanon was "occupied" before, but the occupied portion was not sealed off from the rest of Lebanon which enabled a constant guerrilla war at great cost. The possibility of occupation is clearly what Halevi has in mind, or at least I think so. I doubt he is suggesting Israel would ever undertake the "Grozny strategy" of simply leveling the whole place at whatever cost to civilian life and limb. Russia can get away with that; Israel can't and wouldn't want to except in extremis. The situation is not anywhere close to that.
Another clear example of how a concerted effort to be [wink, wink] absolutely objective about the consequences of the last war will almost certainly make the next one all the more likely.
The mountain of our assumptions do battle with the molehill of their assumptions. This, coupled with the mountain of our facts, will surely crush the molehill of their facts. Or, for the other side's perspective, turn it around.
After all, everyone pretends it's the other side who is not being honest now; thus already laying the blame on them when the kids get blown to bits as the verbal fisticuffs today get attached to actual bombs and artillery shells tomorrow.
Where the wild things are. The monsters. The w ... view full comment
Another clear example of how a concerted effort to be [wink, wink] absolutely objective about the consequences of the last war will almost certainly make the next one all the more likely.
The mountain of our assumptions do battle with the molehill of their assumptions. This, coupled with the mountain of our facts, will surely crush the molehill of their facts. Or, for the other side's perspective, turn it around.
After all, everyone pretends it's the other side who is not being honest now; thus already laying the blame on them when the kids get blown to bits as the verbal fisticuffs today get attached to actual bombs and artillery shells tomorrow.
Where the wild things are. The monsters. The war profiteers.
And, of course, the True Believers, the chickhawks here.
On cue now: huff huff huff puff puff puff.
george
George is a neo-Nazi piece of trailer trash garbage, His father was was a pimp and his mother was a crack whore. Given his ancestry, should we cut him some slack? I vote NO.
George is a neo-Nazi piece of trailer trash garbage, His father was was a pimp and his mother was a crack whore. Given his ancestry, should we cut him some slack? I vote NO.
Wow. I don't know George, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't deserve to be attacked like that! Doesn't anybody moderate this forum?
I think Halevi is correct. Israel has a right of self-defense. I cannot imagine for one moment that America would exercise so much restraint. Hell, we invaded Iraq to stop them giving all their nukes to Al Qaeda. Talk about mountains of assumptions!
Perhaps the violence Halevi anticipates can be avoided. Let us all hope so. I am not optimistic.
Neil
Wow. I don't know George, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't deserve to be attacked like that! Doesn't anybody moderate this forum?
I think Halevi is correct. Israel has a right of self-defense. I cannot imagine for one moment that America would exercise so much restraint. Hell, we invaded Iraq to stop them giving all their nukes to Al Qaeda. Talk about mountains of assumptions!
Perhaps the violence Halevi anticipates can be avoided. Let us all hope so. I am not optimistic.
Neil
Well, I DO know George, and the characterization of him was generous. George got off easily.
Well, I DO know George, and the characterization of him was generous. George got off easily.
purcell:
Wow. I don't know George, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't deserve to be attacked like that! Doesn't anybody moderate this forum?
george:
Note where I was attacking him----personally. Instead, as I often do, I insinuate the opinion maker into the sort of opinion that reads like anything but "just an opinion".
It's my own opinion that disturbs you, of course, not the manner in which it is conveyed. But then that can never be more than just my opinion, right?
As for "moderating" the forums, what would you do if you came across mine above?
What would you do if you came across something like this:
"George is a neo-Nazi piece of trailer trash garbage, His father was was a pimp and his mother wa ... view full comment
purcell:
Wow. I don't know George, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't deserve to be attacked like that! Doesn't anybody moderate this forum?
george:
Note where I was attacking him----personally. Instead, as I often do, I insinuate the opinion maker into the sort of opinion that reads like anything but "just an opinion".
It's my own opinion that disturbs you, of course, not the manner in which it is conveyed. But then that can never be more than just my opinion, right?
As for "moderating" the forums, what would you do if you came across mine above?
What would you do if you came across something like this:
"George is a neo-Nazi piece of trailer trash garbage, His father was was a pimp and his mother was a crack whore. Given his ancestry, should we cut him some slack? I vote NO."
I would be bothered by censoring this too. Or do you see nothing in it that needs to be "moderated" out of existence.
Try this:
Skip my posts.
Oh, and Mr. Price: WHAT do you know about me? And why are you joining in the lynching mentality here? Why am I always singled out, while no one else is?
george walton
d/a
George,
I think Neil was suggesting that perhaps Bulbman's comment should have been screened as being content-less, vile, name-calling.
Neil,
As you will see if you continue to participate in these postings, though there are many thoughtful and stimulating exchanges, there also are a fair number of completely unproductive ad hominem attacks. TNR would be completely within its rights to block such vulgar postings, but it does not do so, perhaps to facilitate something closer to a real time exchange. George's posts (which you will find are ubiquitous on the TNR site), in my experience, provoke more ad hominem attacks than they make, particularly on the Spine blog. However, you also will see t ... view full comment
George,
I think Neil was suggesting that perhaps Bulbman's comment should have been screened as being content-less, vile, name-calling.
Neil,
As you will see if you continue to participate in these postings, though there are many thoughtful and stimulating exchanges, there also are a fair number of completely unproductive ad hominem attacks. TNR would be completely within its rights to block such vulgar postings, but it does not do so, perhaps to facilitate something closer to a real time exchange. George's posts (which you will find are ubiquitous on the TNR site), in my experience, provoke more ad hominem attacks than they make, particularly on the Spine blog. However, you also will see that George doesn't mind it and can more than defend himself.