Israel has the right to defend itself. Anyone who hasn’t been incommunicado somewhere north of the Arctic Circle with a busted shortwave radio for the last nine months has no doubt already heard that familiar – and relatively safe – refrain a multitude of times. That mantra quickly morphed, however, into “Israel has the right to defend itself, BUT …”
On October 12, 2023, just days after the Hamas attack of October 7, Euro News in Brussels declared: “Israel has the right to defend itself, but some of its actions since Hamas’ unprecedented assault on Saturday ‘counter’ international humanitarian law, the EU’s top diplomate Josep Borrell said on Tuesday evening.”
Now, as in the past, Israel’s right to self-defense includes caveats to which the Jewish nation must subscribe or face political and economic consequences from the “international community.” In other words, Israel’s “close allies,” Britain, the US, and the EU through France, do not want there to be political fallout in the Middle East because they don’t want to deal with the backlash back home, especially after providing – either overtly and covertly – economic, political, or military support to Israel in its response to the slaughter of innocent people by Hamas.
Israel Can Defend Itself – If It Does It Our Way
But let us be clear about that support: It comes with strings attached. In the case of the US-Israeli foreign policy arrangement, it comes with a ten-year, $40 billion political carrot at the end. And that means Israel has 40 million reasons to go as the political wind blows out of Washington rather than Jerusalem. And Washington has its own ideas about how Israel should defend itself, as do the other allies.
The above pattern of Israel responding under duress to the caprice
of its “allies” prevailed during each engagement with the surrounding
Arab world from 1948 to 2024. There were, of course, some differences
regarding which allies were more emphatic in their demands. And, lest we
forget, one way or another the issues influencing the actions of
Israel’s “allies: during the above conflicts – including the current one
in Gaza – are a function of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which
permanently altered the geopolitical scheme in the Middle East by
splitting the region into spheres of French and British influence – the
very reason Palestine ended up subject to international control to begin
with.
Yet today, even in the face of the atrocities committed by Hamas last October, Israel remains circumscribed by its so-called allies to the degree that it is urged to defeat the enemy without any civilian casualties or significant disruption to the infrastructure likely being used by Hamas for military purposes. Of course, say the “allies,” Israel always has the right to defend itself. But that is precisely the problem. Israel should not just have the right to defend itself – it has been doing that for 76 years. What Israel and its “close allies” need to understand is that Israel should have the right to exist in peace, if it can achieve it.
Peace, Without Need for Constant Self-Defense
Israel’s right to peace is an entirely different concept – a uniquely different state of mind with profound implications about its present and future state of affairs. It no longer walks to the cadence of a foreign rhythm, but one emanating from the land of Judea and Samaria, one that represents the best interest of the Jewish people of Israel, not some foreign government.
Such a peace is by no means an impossibility. Israel has been moving in that direction since October of last year. She has taken the respect – and, of course, wrath – of the world by determining to rid Gaza and the region of the horror of Hamas. But such actions do not embody retribution or vengeance, as Israel is often accused of in the liberal press. Rather, the calculus is both cautious and careful so as to not respond disproportionately. Israel knows what this hole is like – she has been here before. But accusations of disproportionate response are without merit.~Andrew Wolf, Jr. is director of The Fulcrum Institute, an organization of scholars dedicated to the classical liberal tradition. He has also been published stateside in American Spectator, The Thinking Conservative, and American Thinker, and abroad in International Policy Digest, Times of Israel, and The Daily Philosophy, among others.
No comments:
Post a Comment