One expression, which can be found usually in Israeli leaders’ speech to the Israeli people, is “Deterrence”. Most of the Israeli decisions to go to war were [singlepic id=225 w=320 h=240 float=right]made by considering the importance of deterrence and control by fear over the Middle East. When Israel suffered serious losses while leading wars against Lebanon, Gaza and even the six days war, the Israeli leaders used and continue until today to defend their decisions by claiming that it is a price which Israel must pay for the sake of empowering its deterrence power over the Middle East.

I was surprised a little bit when I was listening to Professor Oded Levenheim talking about the Israeli army and political leaders’ knowledge of deterrence in one of his lectures at the Hebrew University. Prof Levenheim talked about the Israeli latest wars in Lebanon and Gaza then discussed the difference between deterrence and revenge. When Prof Levenheim criticized the Israeli former decisions to go to war because of the possibility that they were made only to take revenge instead of achieving what Israeli leaders call “Deterrence”, the audience did not like the way a war which is supposed to be completely right and moral as the Israeli leaders described it is being criticized and discussed without emotions.

Dan Halutz, who used to be the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces when Israel was in war against Lebanon, was questioned by the Winograd commission that investigated the Israeli actions while in war about the meaning of “deterrence” which the Israeli army continues to state that it is one of the most important goals which it achieves once reacting firmly and strongly against hostile countries around the Israeli state. Halutz answered surprisingly that there is no book, which explains the exact meaning of Israeli deterrence capabilities, and therefore it would be hard to answer such a question. Halutz answer proves that although the Israeli army uses “deterrence” as one of the main reasons for its excessive use of force, it does not hold any exact meaning or explanation for what kind of deterrence it really seeks.

More than 1191 citizens were killed and 4409 were injured in the latest war which was started by Israel against Lebanon. The Israeli leadership defended its decision to go to war by claiming that Hezbullah started it by kidnapping three Israeli soldiers. The fact that Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territories and breach the Lebanese atmosphere and sovereignty was not considered at all. All the Lebanese civilian victims were considered an accepted price which must be paid to respond to the kidnapping of the three Israeli soldiers and to advance Israel’s deterrence capabilities to prevent any possible similar attacks in the future…A price that Israel finds in it a good sense of proportionality that is needed to claim a just war. The problem is that once looking at statistics and reviewing the International Law nothing of what Israel claims seems to be close to a Just war, self-defense or proportionality. The only word that seems to explain the way Israel went to war against Lebanon for the second time and even its latest war on Gaza is Revenge. Not only this but another interesting result which the Israeli leadership brought for its people is a closer relation between Hezbullah, Syria and Iran, and a more insisting desire of obtaining more missiles within Hezbullah leaders that became a fact today.

[singlepic id=224 w=320 h=240 float=left] When the Israeli leadership decided to go to war against Gaza because of Hamas’s missiles, Israel was very close to its parliament elections. The surprise was that all the Israeli parties supported the war including the right, the middle and the left, and the rising Israeli leaders at that time Ehud Olmert, Tsipi Levni, Ehud Barak and Netanyahu agreed that Israel must launch a wide war against Hamas in Gaza AGAIN to achieve deterrence that would mind Hamas from attacking Israeli targets. More than 1166 Palestinians were killed including 300 children that paid the price of advancing Israel’s deterrence capabilities. Although Israel tried to explain that it had to attack Gaza strip in such a way and that those people who died are a part of a proportionality math which Israel made while considering the missiles which were launched against Israeli targets and killed fifteen Israelis in the whole eight years. Again, the Israeli siege on Gaza, the continuous occupation of the Palestinian territories since tens of years and the apartheid policy against Palestinians and Arabs inside Israel before the war was not taken into account while considering the option of war.

The word which explains for the second time why the Israeli leadership decided to go to war and why the Israeli leaders agreed together for the first time on something (the war) is Revenge. The result, which the Israeli leadership brought for its people, is the Goldstone report that accuses Israel of crimes of war.

Although Israel tries to prove that it is an independent, modern, and developed country that respects the International Law and Human Rights, it seems that race in elections, revenge, and continuous occupation that continues to hold territories that are not part of Israel at all are all reasons which push Israel to choose war every once and a while. Maybe all these reasons joined together could give a meaning for Israel continues to defend until today and considers the only reason it survived in the Middle East until now…Deterrence.
Although some Israelis may consider ideas similar to Prof Levenheim’s anti Israel, they should reconsider their opinion and think of what he and people like him think if they really want the interest of Israel and wish to have a modern and developed state that the current Israeli state seems to be far from.

Ziad Khalil Abu Zayyad

A Palestinian-Arab living in East Jerusalem, Ziad graduated from College Des Freres in Jerusalem in 2003. Ziad finished his major in International Relations and English Literature from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ziad is a former President of the Watan student movement at the university. He is interested in Middle Eastern political issues and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Founder of the Middle East Post and MEL (Middle East Future Leadership Network), he represents Palestinian youth at several international conferences.

Website - More Posts