Moshe Dann: Can Israel Win the War Against Terrorism?
https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/can-israel-win-the-war-against-terroris
The problem is that many Israeli leaders not only believe that Israel cannot win its war against terrorism, but that Israel should not win – that Palestinians deserve a state, regardless of who will be in charge – because this would relieve Israel of moral and legal dilemmas, e.g. “the occupation.”
Most (if not all) countries go to war to win; Israel, however, is different. First, neither Israel nor the PLO conceives of the conflict as a war, since they have mutual ongoing political, security, and economic interests; terrorism, therefore, is seen as part of an ongoing relationship. Until Oct 7, Israeli leaders assumed that this was also true for Hamas.
This leads to the second reason: Israel was not fighting to destroy terrorism, but to prevent attacks, neutralize or arrest terrorists, and then, temporarily, return to a “status quo.” That’s why warnings about what Hamas was doing were ignored by Israel’s political, military, and security leaders; they duped themselves.
Hope-doped, drugged by self-assurance, and seeking to appease the Obama/Biden administrations, the EU, the UN, and the international community, they accepted “the two-state solution” (2SS). They failed to understand that the conflict is not over territory, but is – as Hamas proclaims – a religious war to eliminate Israel. That explains why Palestinian leaders consistently reject offers of statehood in return for recognizing Israel’s right to exist, and why they continue to launch terrorist attacks against Jews. They are engaged in a “holy war” against Jews and Zionists as “invaders” and “occupiers of Palestine” – all of it. That is a call for genocide.
Attempts to reduce, or “manage the conflict” by making concessions, therefore, failed because of an unwillingness to understand what the PLO, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations want. Despite ongoing terrorism during the 1990s, Israeli, European, and American leaders promoted a “peace process,” the Oslo Accords. As Yasser Arafat admitted, it was only a step towards his goal of destroying Israel.
Although the Abraham Accords were a sign of hope, they had no effect in the terrorist war against Israel. Meanwhile, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, and other Muslim countries poured billions into Hamas’ war efforts. Distracted, Israeli leaders ignored what was going on in Gaza. Self-assured, they refused to accept reality
This created a double-bind. On one hand, Israel’s security forces are trying to contain terrorism; on the other hand, Israel is committed to fulfilling obsolete agreements and sustaining the PA/PLO and until recently, Hamas. Winning the war against terrorism, therefore, undermines the 2SS.
Although catching and/or killing terrorists is important, it has little effect in the war on terrorism. For every terrorist that is eliminated or imprisoned, there are many who are ready and willing to replace him/her as part of their “holy war” against Israel. Refusing to accept reality, many believe that Arabs, Muslims, and especially Palestinians will give up and make peace, or at least that Israel can “manage the conflict,” offering economic incentives while waiting for the next attacks.
The problem is that many Israeli leaders not only believe that Israel cannot win its war against terrorism, but that Israel should not win – that Palestinians deserve a state, regardless of who will be in charge – because this would relieve Israel of moral and legal dilemmas, e.g. “the occupation.” And, morality, ethical monotheism, is the essence of Judaism and of the State of Israel.
While acknowledging liberal democratic values, however, this clashes with another value: Israel’s survival, the safety of Jews and their protection, and the right of the Jewish People to their homeland in Eretz Yisrael. It is, therefore, a question of priorities.
There are even more difficult questions: What would be the borders of such a state? What is its purpose? What are its values, if any? Will it be stable, or become a battleground for competing terrorist groups? Whom does it serve? How does it serve Arabs who live in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, as well as Arab-Israeli citizens who identify as Palestinians?
And, what will be the fate of Jews who now live in the areas that would be given to a Palestinian state? Will Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians recognize the right of Israel to exist? Will terrorism and the war against Jews end? These too are moral questions.
Those who designed, supported, and implemented the Oslo Accords justified taking risks that were apparent to everyone because of moral-legal considerations. Ignoring the dangers, they failed, and continue to fail to understand that these arguments are not absolute, but are conditional and relative. As long as Palestinians engage in terrorism and advocate murder and genocide, their demands for a state are immoral and irrelevant, and those who ignore this are complicit.
Israel’s survival is the only moral, legal, and realistic response to terrorism; it is the reason for its existence and is the basis for its declaration of sovereignty over all areas which are of vital national interest.
Comments are closed.
