| Connect with AJC: |
|
Frequently Asked Questions
The concept of proportionate force is highly ambiguous. If, by proportionate force, you mean to ask if Israel is using the same kind of tactics against Hezbollah as Hezbollah is using against Israel, the answer is no. Israel is not indiscriminately firing missiles into civilian areas; it is not seeking to abduct, without provocation, non-combatants; it is not trying to de-stabilize the region. Israel is carefully hitting legitimate targets. If, by proportionate force, you mean to ask if Israel is using the same amount of force (however such things are measured) in responding to Hezbollah as Hezbollah used on Israel, the answer is, again, no. This would suggest that the goal of the Israeli operation is to do as much damage to Hezbollah as Hezbollah does to Israel-in short, to take revenge. But Israel does not seek revenge, it seeks to stop Hezbollah's attacks and to prevent future such episodes. Israel is using the amount of force "proportionate" to the required objective of providing security for its citizens. Why doesn't Israel agree to a "prisoner exchange" with Hezbollah in order to hasten a ceasefire? The phrase "prisoner exchange" is misleading because it implies that the prisoners were apprehended in the same fashion and for the same reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel has captured in combat situations Hezbollah terrorists who were actively trying to inflict harm on its citizens. Hezbollah has brazenly abducted Israeli soldiers on routine patrols along an internationally recognized border. Another distinction is how prisoners are treated once in captivity. Hezbollah often tortures prisoners and kills them; Israel allows for visits from the Red Cross and adheres to international norms. Israel and other Western countries have long held that negotiating with terrorists over such exchanges only emboldens the terrorists to do it again. These exchanges likely increase, not decrease, the risk of violence. Does the Arab world oppose the Israeli move? A number of moderate Arab countries have quietly supported the Israeli operation, fearing that Hezbollah and Hamas are posing increasing dangers to the entire region. Several Arab countries openly blamed Hezbollah for the attacks, calling them "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts." The G8's statement also implicitly laid blame on Hezbollah, stating that "extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict." Why does Israel oppose an international force? Israel is concerned that an international force, deployed at this stage of the conflict, would prevent Israel from responding to a still strong Hezbollah. Such forces have been weak and ineffective in previous regional conflicts. It is possible that as Hezbollah is weakened, Israel will re-consider a possible role for an international force. Do further Israeli attacks threaten to de-stabilize the Lebanese government and undermine this nascent Middle East democracy? There's no evidence whatsoever that the Lebanese government is in danger of falling. Israel has not gone after Lebanese leaders or hit Lebanese government buildings. It has limited its operations to Hezbollah and the routs-air, sea and land-that are used to supply Hezbollah with arms. Israel's military operations no doubt place a great deal of pressure on Lebanon. The Israeli government hopes that the Lebanese government will adhere to UN Security Council resolutions that require it to establish sovereignty over its own territory and disarm militias, including Hezbollah. Once this happens, the Lebanese government will be stronger and in better control of its own territory. Was Israel justified in responding to the Hezbollah kidnappings? The Hezbollah terrorist attacks constitute an unprovoked act of aggression. Israel withdrew its troops from Lebanon in May 2000, fully complying with U.N. Security Council Resolution 425. The U.N. Secretary General confirmed Israel's full compliance, and then the Security Council reaffirmed its cooperation in repeated resolutions. While Israel has fully adhered to Resolution 425, the Lebanese government has failed to comply with its responsibilities under this Resolution. It has failed to re-establish effective authority in Southern Lebanon, and failed to cooperate in restoring international peace and security along its border with Israel. Instead, the Lebanese government has allowed Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations to use Southern Lebanon as a springboard for repeated attacks against Israel. The government of Lebanon bears full responsibility for terrorist attacks perpetrated from within its borders against a neighboring state. Israel has every right and obligation to its own citizens to take measures to prevent further attacks. Why did Israel hit Lebanon's "civilian infrastructure"? The Lebanese government has deliberated, but has failed to send troops to secure its Southern border, which is currently controlled by Hezbollah. Israel's military operations are designed in part to persuade the Lebanese government to take its security obligations seriously and to prevent its border from being used as a platform for attacks against Israel. After a recent cabinet meeting, the Lebanese government said it had a right and duty to extend its control over all Lebanese territory, indicating that it can, with the requisite political will, establish control over its own borders and thereby curtail Hezbollah's terrorist activities. Should America intervene diplomatically to stop the war? The U.S. has been steadfast in supporting Israel's right to self-defense. American diplomacy should continue to focus on getting Lebanon to move its army into its Southern border region, which would prevent Hezbollah from using the territory for further attacks. American diplomatic efforts should also work to unite the civilized world in getting Iran and Syria to stop supplying Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons and the political will to continue their war against Israel. American diplomacy has not and should not, however, seek to stop Israel from putting an end to the immediate threat of missiles and kidnappings and from disrupting the supply routs used to re-arm Hezbollah (i.e. the airport and key roads). The U.S. should also not attempt to persuade Israel to stop the operation with no change in the status of Hezbollah's unchecked presence in the South, which would only encourage the terrorist group to continue its attacks. Does Israel's policy of deterrence work? Israel is a small country in a very difficult neighborhood where inaction is often viewed as weakness and an invitation to further hostilities. Indeed, after Israel pulled out of Gaza, Hamas and other terror groups peddled the view that the Israeli move was a victory for Palestinian terror strategy and were all too eager to prove that they could continue to attack Israel with impunity. Likewise, Hezbollah's recent attacks were meant to show that the terrorist group and its Iranian sponsor are strong, and that Israel is weak. Given this environment, Israel must consider not only the costs and risks of its defensive operations, but the costs and risks of not doing anything to defend itself. While some commentators have argued that American and Israeli deterrence have failed to transform the Middle East into a safer region and have only angered Arab populations, they have failed to take into account what might have happened had Israel not acted to defend itself. Without the credible threat of force, Syria and Iran will only continue to provide the means for Hezbollah and Hamas to make war against the Jewish State. In the end, Israel must demonstrate the will to defend itself.
|