Reflections on War, Terrorism and Peace

Brig. Gen. (res.) Shimon Hefetz believes that the geopolitical reality and changes in our world generally and in our region in particular call for a review of the national security and foreign policy of the State of Israel

 

Reflections on War, Terrorism and Peace

 

At the background of the geopolitical reality and changes in our world, a linkage exists between the security and foreign policies of the member countries of the European Union and those of the USA, which necessitates profound determination in order to fight the barbaric terrorism of ISIS and similar organizations. This status picture and the changes in the Arab world generally and in our region in particular call for a review of the national security and foreign policy of the State of Israel.

Israel's national security policy is the outcome of the Arab hostility that had existed even before the State of Israel was established. Since the establishment of the State, this hostility was reflected in the development of a military capability that would implement that hostility in the form military moves. The reason for the existence of a security and foreign policy is the Islamic hostility on the part of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Firstly, we should define the circle of external threats toward which Israel should prepare, along with the policy that should be adopted vis-à-vis those threats.

The range of threats, since the establishment of the State of Israel to this day, may be divided into two threat levels, as outlined below.

The first level consists of the existential threat. This threat is reflected by Iran and its nuclear program, and by the Arab countries with whom Israel has no peace agreements in the context of potential scenarios involving the combined forces of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

The second level consists of the terrorism threat. This is a threat to the normal lifestyle of the Israeli population. It is imposed by such terrorist organizations as Hamas, Hezbollah and World Jihad.

In the course of my military career, I often asked myself whether it would be possible, given the conditions and circumstances of the Arab-Israeli conflict, to implement Von Clausewitz's definition according to which 'war is a continuation of politics by other means'. The objective of war is to destroy the military strength and the will to fight of the other side. So, would it be possible to implement Von Clausewitz's assumptions, for example, as the Allies did during World War II against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperialist Japan? The essential purpose of that war was to achieve overbalance in the most decisive and crushing manner in order to enforce a political solution. That effort succeeded and each one of the aforementioned regimes subsequently underwent a profound transformation.

In the past, that question had been asked with regard to ourselves, namely – could this be implemented in Israel, assuming that the State of Israel dropped everything else for a period of five years, deciding not to promote any social, welfare or other issues, and instead develop a colossal military power and engage in a war that would put an end to all wars? The answer, however, is that we have moral reservations about such thoughts. Will we be able to enforce peace by one major war? I doubt it. If anyone needs lessons from the past – albeit on a limited scale – they should study the lessons of the first and second Lebanon wars and the operations in the Gaza Strip since the pullout to Operation Protective Edge.

Does the military strength of Israel lack an element that possesses political significance? The answer is an unequivocal yes. At any given moment, our military strength prevents the catastrophe of that rhetoric, by some of our enemies who aspire to throw us into the Mediterranean Sea. Wisdom compels us to be aware of the limits of our power, of the function of the Israeli military strength (beyond the security functions in the political realm), to combine deterrence and overbalance into a cumulative process and to shift the primary activity of the existing conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

Therefore, the IDF of 2015 must be aggressive, as a defensive capacity alone is not a sufficient deterrent. Only the capacity to impose a substantial offensive threat can achieve deterrence. A military possessing cutting-edge weapon systems an offensive structure and an aggressive mindset is a combination of threat and deterrence. Maintaining a military that possesses such overbalance and deterrence capabilities costs a lot of money – which means that a long-term defense budget framework must be maintained.

At the same time, in our fight against terrorism, we must utilize tools and methods intended to minimize our own vulnerability and maximize the damage we inflict on the terrorist elements. Eventually, the people of Israel should be told the truth: no one can promise that not a single tunnel, Katyusha rocket, Qassam rocket or mortar shell will ever drop inside Israeli territory. We should create the conditions under which the normal lifestyle of the Israeli population will not be disrupted.

Thus, the situation is by no means easy. On the contrary – it is rather complex, but we are committed to resolving it. There are no easy solutions.

You might be interested also