Political Survival

Precepts

There are basic precepts of foreign policy that govern “civilized” nations.  The first is called “proportional response”.  The idea is that if one Nation (or group) acts against another, the “victim” is allowed to respond in the same way.  If Country A blows up a bridge in Country B, country B can respond, maybe blowing up an airfield.  But Country A’s action doesn’t justify Country B dropping a nuclear bomb – that would be a disproportionate response. 

The second precept is – don’t “cut off the head of the snake”.  It simply means that if a Country kills the leaders of the “other side”, then who can they negotiate with?  A leadership strike only allows for an equal response and an all-out war, war that must end in the total destruction of one side or the other.  Even in the “bad old days” of the Cold War and Mutual Assured Destruction (no matter what, there would be enough bombs left to destroy the other side), killing off the opposition leaders was the last move, because it left no room for a “wiser-heads” to prevail – they would be dead.  The dark joke, “Moscow in flames, bombs on the way, film at eleven” meant that it was all over.

And the third political precept was popularized by Abraham Lincoln.  In the bloodiest days of the Civil War, the awful 1864 campaigns across Virginia from the Wilderness to Spotsylvania to Cold Harbor and finally Petersburg (over 7,600 Union troops killed, near 40,000 wounded); the Union held a Presidential election.  Lincoln asked that the Nation “not change horses in mid-stream”, and re-elect him.  In the bloody summer, it was a real question whether Lincoln or General George McClellan would be President the next year.  Only Sherman’s victory in Georgia (leading to his famous “March to the Sea”) saved Lincoln’s tenure in office.

October 7th

On October 7th Hamas, the group running the Palestinian Gaza region, launched a terrorist attack on Israel.  Over a thousand Israelis, mostly civilians, were massacred, many in horrific ways.  Hamas was a “quasi-national” state; governing Gaza with an iron hand, in charge of hospitals and water and trash collection; all of the “things” a government should do.  There is no question that the Israeli government needed to respond, in force, to the direct provocation.  It made sense that Israel should do whatever it could to remove those who planned the attack, and make sure that it never happened again.  It is the basic slogan of the founding of Israel after the Holocaust – Never Again!!

In the past nine months, Israel systematically destroyed Hamas assets and leaders.  According to Israeli estimates, 15,000 Hamas soldiers have been killed.  But Gaza is a tightly packed region, with over 2 million people crammed into an area the size of Las Vegas (three times the population).  And over half of the population is 18 years old or under.  Hamas estimates (and neutral sources agree) that over 40,000 Gazans have been killed.  And since half the population is 18 or under, it stands to reason that many were children. (Note:  Hamas also recruits teenagers as soldiers, so many of the 15,000 claimed by the Israelis were children as well).  

Dis-Proportional Responses

It is a question of proportional response.  Israel is leaving “no stone unturned” in its search for Hamas.  A look at the devastation seems like they’ve left few buildings still standing, either.  Legitimately Israel has a right and a duty to defend and protect its people.  But when does that action go beyond “proportional response” to simple revenge?  The theoretical difference between civilized nation-states and terrorist non-state actors is the willingness to protect civilians and enforce the  “rules” of civilized war.  Israel takes a different view.  They are willing to act as a “terrorist non-state” against Hamas, regardless of the Palestinian civilians in the way.  It’s a short term solution, which is likely to lead to a much longer term problem,  creating a whole new generation of terrorists.  

Yesterday Israel launched an attack on the “political” leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh.  (Israel has not taken responsibility for this attack, yet.  Meanwhile, the military leader of Hamas is still in Gaza, Yehya Sinwar).  They identified that Haniyeh was at a home in Tehran; after celebrating the inauguration of the new President of Iran.  The Israeli’s launched a missile, killing Haniyeh in the Iranian capital.  In addition, Israel also dropped a missile on a leader of another terrorist group, Hezbollah, in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon.  This was in response to a Hezbollah missile that killed a dozen teenagers when it landed on a soccer field in the Israeli occupied Golan Heights.  

In essence, Israel is  “cutting off the head” of Hamas, just as negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza are showing some progress.   Which poses the question:  who does Israel expect to negotiate with, or do they want to negotiate at all?

War or Politics

Which gets us to our third precept:  changing horses in mid-stream.  The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, is deeply unpopular (recent polling shows him at 36%, albeit 2% better than his opposition).  As long as Israel is deeply entangled in war, it’s unlikely that the country will hold elections.  Netanyahu has a political interest in maintaining war, and seems to be willing to risk expanding the conflict to include both an all-out war with Hezbollah, and perhaps even the nation-state Iran.

Is Netanyahu a hero, showing stern resolve against enemies of the Israeli state:  Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran?  Or is Netanyahu a political opportunist, using bloodshed and unnecessary violence to maintain his own political power?  Is he willing to risk a regional conflict, an open war with Iran?  After all, he did kill a visiting “dignitary” in the Iranian capital city.  What would the United States do if that happened in Washington?  What would Israel do if it happened in Tel Aviv?  

And the question that arises from all this: will the United States maintain its resolute support for Israel if Iran acts with a dis-proportional response to the missile-assassination?  And how does that impact the American political process?  Did Biden know, or did Trump?

It’s not just Netanyahu that is in “mid-stream”.

Hamas/Israel War

Author: Marty Dahlman

I'm Marty Dahlman. After forty years of teaching and coaching track and cross country, I've finally retired!!! I've also spent a lot of time in politics, working campaigns from local school elections to Presidential campaigns.