|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The recent tragedy in the Golan Heights town of Majdal Shams, where 12 children were killed by an Iranian missile supplied to Hezbollah, has once again highlighted the stark reality facing Israel. This horrific event, while shocking, was not entirely unexpected given the continuous bombardment of northern Israel. The evacuation of hundreds of families months ago was a dire warning that mass casualties were only a matter of time under the current policy of containment.
This policy of containment is fundamentally flawed. It is a strategic approach that has failed to address the root of the problem and has instead allowed it to fester. The conceptzia, the Israeli intelligence community’s term for a dangerous complacency, was painfully evident during Hamas’s massacre on October 7. This mindset leads to a dangerous underestimation of threats when enemy assaults are not as deadly as they could have been. Rather than responding with the necessary force, Israel often takes solace in the effectiveness of its Iron Dome defenses and the public’s adherence to Home Front Command directives.
The Iron Dome has undoubtedly saved countless lives, intercepting rockets and minimizing casualties. However, this reliance on defensive measures creates a false sense of security. The directives from the Home Front Command—ranging from instructions on how to seek shelter during an air raid to avoiding the dangers of shrapnel from interceptions—are crucial for immediate survival but do not address the long-term security needs of the nation. These measures prepare citizens for the inevitability of attacks rather than preventing them.
It is no surprise, then, that Israel’s military is called the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Yet, considering the existential threats posed by hostile neighbors armed and supported by Tehran, it is time to reconsider this nomenclature. The IDF’s primary role should not merely be defense but also offense, ensuring that threats are neutralized before they manifest into deadly attacks.
Israel is surrounded by adversaries intent on its destruction. These foes are equipped with advanced weaponry supplied by Iran, enabling them to launch devastating attacks. The recent slaughter in Majdal Shams is a tragic reminder that the status quo is untenable. The policy of containment must be replaced with a proactive offensive strategy.
An offensive posture does not imply recklessness or unnecessary aggression. Instead, it represents a strategic shift towards deterrence through strength. Israel must adopt measures that dissuade its enemies from contemplating attacks. This could involve pre-emptive strikes on missile launch sites, targeted operations against terrorist leaders, and the disruption of supply chains that provide weapons to groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
Critics may argue that an offensive strategy conflicts with the IDF’s commitment to being “the most moral army in the world.” While ethical conduct is crucial, it must be balanced with the imperative of national security. The IDF’s code of ethics should not be a hindrance to effective military action. In fact, a well-executed offensive strategy can prevent greater loss of life by curbing the capabilities of those who seek to inflict harm on Israeli civilians.
The moral high ground is of little comfort to grieving families and a terrorized populace. The recent events have shown that a purely defensive stance is insufficient to protect the nation. The IDF must adapt to the realities of the threats it faces, ensuring that its ethical standards are upheld while taking decisive action to eliminate those threats.
The doctrine of “legitimacy,” which posits that Israel must calibrate its responses to ensure international approval, has long been a cornerstone of the country’s defense policy. This approach is deeply rooted in the belief that disproportionate responses would erode Israel’s support from key international players such as Washington, New York, and Brussels. However, the reality is that this overly cautious policy has failed to prevent further attacks and has not garnered the anticipated legitimacy.
One of the most glaring examples of this flawed doctrine was on April 14. Despite the Iranian launch of hundreds of drones and missiles, which resulted in only minor injuries and damage due to successful interceptions, Israel’s restrained response was essentially ineffective. The government’s reluctance to retaliate decisively, citing concerns over legitimacy, only emboldened adversaries and failed to deter future attacks.
The ethical code of “legitimacy” crafted by Asa Kasher, a far-left activist, has been upheld as a moral compass for the IDF. The IDF’s adherence to this code, despite the ongoing existential threats, has resulted in a paradox where greater care in military operations leads to increased international condemnation and a rise in global anti-Semitism.
The principle of treating every failed enemy assault as a mere statistic must be discarded. Each attack, regardless of its immediate impact, represents a clear intent to commit mass murder and should be met with a response that reflects the severity of this intent. The current policy of containment and measured retaliation has only perpetuated a cycle of violence, as seen in the repeated attacks on Israeli soil.
Contrary to popular belief, Israel’s tough actions do not incur as much wrath as anticipated. The international community’s reaction to the IDF’s careful operations has often been more critical than its response to decisive military actions.
This latest act of violence in Majdal Shams is not an isolated incident but part of a disturbing pattern of escalating aggression from the Houthis and Hezbollah. While previous Houthi attacks did not result in casualties, they set a dangerous precedent that Israel cannot afford to ignore. The recent Israeli Air Force strikes on Houthi targets in Hodeidah, although necessary and proportionate, were met with a surprisingly mild international reaction, indicating a potential shift in the global community’s tolerance for Israel’s defensive actions.
The concept of “red lines” has been a cornerstone of Israel’s security policy. However, these red lines must be more than just rhetoric; they must be enforced with tangible actions. Avoiding a full-scale war out of fear of international backlash or further escalation makes a mockery of these red lines, reducing them to meaningless statements. Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations must understand that any attack on Israeli soil will be met with overwhelming force.
Israel’s reluctance to engage in a full-scale conflict has allowed its enemies to operate with impunity. The international community’s often muted response to Israeli defensive actions should not deter the nation from doing what is necessary to protect its citizens. The Houthis’ continued aerial attacks and Hezbollah’s brutal massacre in Majdal Shams are clear indications that Israel’s current strategy is insufficient.
The recent acts of aggression by the Houthis and Hezbollah demand a fundamental reassessment of Israel’s defensive strategy. The Israeli government must prioritize the security of its citizens above all else, adopting a more aggressive stance to deter future attacks. The time for measured responses and international appeasement has passed. Israel must enforce its red lines with decisive action, holding Beirut and other aggressors accountable for their actions.
The reaction to the Majdal Shams massacre has been one of outrage and frustration among Israelis. Hagari’s remarks about the lack of intelligence regarding Hezbollah’s intentions, while intended to illustrate the organization’s cruelty, only served to highlight a failure in anticipating and preventing such attacks. Israelis are well aware of Hezbollah’s savagery and do not need reminders; what they need is assurance that their government and military are taking decisive steps to prevent further tragedies.
The Security Cabinet’s authorization for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to determine the manner and timing of Israel’s response to the Majdal Shams massacre is a critical development. It is imperative that this response be both swift and severe. Beirut must be held accountable for Hezbollah’s actions. Failure to do so not only endangers Israeli lives but also undermines the credibility of Israel’s deterrence capabilities.
