|
|
|
Last Updated: Oct 7, 2008 - 8:49:58 AM |
The “Dahiya strategy” is a term that will become entrenched in our
security discourse. Dahiya is the Shiite quarter in Beirut that our
pilots turned into rubble during the Second Lebanon War.
In an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth Friday, IDF Northern Command
Chief Gadi Eisenkot uttered clear words that essentially mean the
following: In the next clash with Hizbullah we won’t bother to hunt for
tens of thousands of rocket launchers and we won’t spill our soldiers’
blood in attempts to overtake fortified Hizbullah positions. Rather, we
shall destroy Lebanon and won’t be deterred by the protests of the
“world.”
We shall pulverize the 160 Shiite villages that have turned into Shiite
army bases, and we shall not show mercy when it comes to hitting the
national infrastructure of a state that, in practice, is controlled by
Hizbullah. This strategy is not a threat uttered by an impassioned
officer, but rather, an approved plan.
Thus far, the “Dahiya strategy” was not adopted because Israel
attempted to cling to the distinction between “good Lebanese” and “bad
Lebanese.” If we only hit the “bad guys,” we thought, the “good guys”
will grow stronger. But there we have it: The “bad guys” took over our
neighboring country.
Now, the whole of Lebanon is an Iranian outpost. Demography, military
power, confidence, the social infrastructure, the fighting spirit, and
outside support are in favor of Nasrallah.
This is both bad and good. It’s bad, because north of us there is a
state that is entirely malicious. It’s good, because there is no longer
any need for complicated distinctions. Israeli strategists’ new point
of view is that Lebanon is an enemy, rather than a complex puzzle of
factions, some of which are enemies while the others are victims of a
situation not under their control.
Everyone is Nasrallah
Despite the revolutionary change on the domestic Lebanese front, I do
not think that the Dahiya strategy would have received the official
stamp of approval had our leaders’ view of accountability not changed.
This change was not the result of an orderly examination process, but
rather, a growing realization that led to the following conclusion: Our
neighbors must be held fully accountable for their leaders’ acts.
We have failed in our sophisticated attempts to distinguish between
innocent individuals and sinning leaders. We have failed in the effort
to distinguish between “simple people who also have fathers and
children” and those who incite those simple folk. Without saying so
explicitly, we reached the conclusion that nations are responsible for
their leaders’ acts.
In practical terms, the Palestinians in Gaza are all Khaled Mashaal,
the Lebanese are all Nasrallah, and the Iranians are all Ahmadinejad.
Regrettably this doctrine did not take hold in the days following our
withdrawal from Lebanon. Too bad it did not take hold immediately after
the “disengagement” from Gaza and the first rocket barrages directed at
the northern Negev. In both those cases we deluded ourselves into
thinking that the “people” are not the same as their leaders, and that
the “people” only care about making a living, but are captive to
“radical and irresponsible elements.”
Had we immediately adopted the Dahiya strategy, we would have likely
spared ourselves much trouble. Implementing the Dahiya strategy in Gaza
would have made it clear to Hamas that we do not intend to hit them
proportionally.
The Dahiya strategy is the customary doctrine adopted by most Arabs. In
their view, “Zionists” are criminals, yet all of Israel’s citizens are
“Zionists,” including Jews who do not at all endorse Zionism. Only Arab
propagandists educated in the West make the distinction between the
“Zionist government” and the Jewish people, “with which we have no
historical conflict and were able to live in harmony for hundreds of
years.”
I do not propose that we adopt the Arab way of thinking, but rather,
only the conclusions stemming from a permanent situation whereby states
and political groups that claim to be representative shirk their
responsibility for those they make pretenses of representing. I am
referring to the situation whereby Arab civilians grumble about being
punished because of their leaders, while fearing their leaders more
than they fear us. We need to make the fear we sow among them greater
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|