Dakota Beacon

Israel’s fight is not a fight for territorial acquisition. Israel has always fought for its very right to exist. Theirs has been a life or death struggle.

Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas tried to have the United Nations unilaterally declare a Palestinian state and his effort garnered widespread sympathy. According to conventional wisdom, Israeli hard-liners refuse to accept a Palestinian state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu brought his coalition government to open recognition of a Palestinian state creating a national consensus for a two-state solution.

Hamas does not want a Jewish state in existence. Abbas has therefore boycotted all peace talks. He wants the “right of return” which would swamp Israel turning it into the 23^rd Arab state.

Israel’s war today is really with Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah serve as Iran’s proxies. As Iran continues testing the resolve of the West, their ultimate target is not Israel. It is America. Eliminating the Jewish state is only a stepping stone.

While Israel defends its children from Hamas rockets with the Iron Dome air defense system, Hamas defends its rockets with children exposed to death and carnage. Placing rockets and rocket launchers in and around schools, mosques and hospitals is part and parcel of the sick jihadist-suicide mentality.

Then there are the tunnels – the terrorist logistics infrastructure. Taking out rockets and rocket launchers is not enough. Israel must also take out the tunnels. These tunnels are not crawl spaces but are structures large enough to accommodate trucks used to transport Hamas munitions, supplies and personnel from Egypt to Gaza and then from Gaza beneath the border and into Israel.

Does Israel have options? Yes, but very few if it wants to survive.

The first possibility is a forward defense. This has been Israel’s defense policy for the first half century of its existence. As a small state surrounded by belligerents, Israel fought its wars on enemy territory rather than its own. As a small and densely populated country, Israel cannot accept the risk of fighting on its own territory. The idea is “you fight them there” so “you don’t have to fight them here.” This is the same rationale America uses for fighting in Afghanistan.

In adopting a forward defense, Israel traded land for peace. When Israel’s peace offers were rejected, Israel retained the territory as a buffer zone. They did this in southern Lebanon and Gaza. But, under strong criticism that the occupations were the cause of anti-Israel sentiment, Israel withdrew.

Peace? Land for peace? The policy worked until Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. Did they get peace? In return they received intensified violence on their borders, kidnappings and the militarization of those areas.

The second possibility for Israel is an active defense. This involves military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the new terrorist mini-states that evolved on their borders after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and Gaza. (Disrupt, dismantle and defeat are the words Obama uses with regard to the Taliban and al Qaeda.)

As a result, Israel engaged once again in military operations to remove the threat of rocket and terrorist attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. These actions included the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza operation of 2008-2009. Once again the Israelis drew heavy criticism on behalf of their legitimate self-defense.

The third option is a passive defense. A passive defense involves an attempt to deny the rearmament of Hamas and Hezbollah through blockades and other forms of embargo placed on southern Lebanon and Gaza. Europe and even the United States objected to Israel’s passive defense measures.

This begs the question. What other forms of defense are left? The answer is quite simple: none. Or, just about none. The point of all opposition to Israel’s self-defense is to deprive her of any legitimate form of defense at all.

There is one final possibility and almost every nation, including the United States, stands opposed to Israel on this matter. Israel still holds nuclear weapons. Their final defense might be an ineffective form of deterrence.

An increasing number of states, particularly through the Islamic-dominated United Nations, resolutely reject any legitimate self-defense measures Israel adopts – specifically forward and active defenses. Meanwhile, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and much of the Islamic world call for death to Israel. The cry is echoed by Muslim populations throughout Europe.

What is Israel to do?

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).