The Long War Journal: Messages

Written by Bill Roggio on September 27, 2004 1:46 AM to The Long War Journal

Available online at: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2004/09/messages.php

Israel has assassinated a Hamas "activist" in Damascus, the capitol of Syria. The Syrians are naturally beside themselves with anger over Israel's temerity to kill a state sponsored terrorist within Syrian borders. Hamas is scurrying for cover and threatening retaliation attacks it seems less and less capable of executing. Let's take a quick look at what this means with respect to Israel's ongoing war with Palestinian terrorists as well as a possible widening of the war.

(1) Israel has placed Hamas on notice; this is a continuation of the war to decapitate its leadership. Hamas leaders can no longer openly peddle their wares outside of the Palestinian territories without fear of deadly reprisals. Israel's terrorist enemies will no longer be accorded the safety of foreign governments they assumed existed. There is no "home base" to protect them from the arm of the Mossad.

(2) Israel does not fear significant and widespread reprisals by Hamas. The Beersheba bus bombings were revenge for Sheik Ahmed Yassin, which occurred almost six months prior. The effectiveness of the fence as well as other security measures has given the Israelis confidence it can thwart wide scale attacks within its borders.

(3) Nations harboring Hamas (Syria and Lebanon specifically) are no longer untouchable. The rules have changed. These countries will have their sovereignty violated by Israel if they continue to sponsor terrorists, and they will be impotent to stop it. Protecting Hamas and others has suddenly gotten a whole lot less attractive.

(4) Israel has little regard for the rulings of the United Nations, the European Union, or the International Court of Justice. Israel has been on the receiving end of countless resolutions by the United Nations, diplomatic rebukes from the EU and negative court rulings by the ICJ, but none of these have deterred Israel from pursuing the current policy against Palestinian terrorists. They have taken the position that they would rather be condemned and alive than compliant and dead.

(5) Israel completely discounts the potency of the Arab Street. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories, the assassinations of Rantisi, Yassin, Khalil and a host of other Palestinian terrorists as well as the yearlong isolation of Yasser Arafat in his Ramallah compound have generated little opposition in Arab governments, and the street has been silent. The Arab Street is a media myth created to encourage inaction.

(6) The Mossad demonstrated it has the will, and specifically the means to carry out attacks against their deadly enemies on foreign soil. The AP article on the assassination of Khalil contains an interesting piece of information:

On Friday, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported that an Arab intelligence service had given Israel information on Hamas leaders abroad, including where they lived, what their hobbies were and even what food they ate. It cited unidentified Arab sources in Europe.

The attack required meticulous intelligence and planning, as well as the necessary assets on ground to physically plant and possibly detonate the device. Has the Mossad co-opted an Arab intelligence service, or at the very least subcontracted this job? Israel is telegraphing a message to an audience greater than Hamas and its sponsor nations. As a Syrian official wisely points out, the assassination "was meant to deliver a message to the entire world that says: 'We (Israelis) are capable of striking anywhere in accordance with the Israeli agenda.'"

While attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would require planning and sophistication several degrees of magnitude greater than that used against Khalil, it certainly shows Israel has the capability and will to carry out attacks against their enemies on foreign soil. Saddam's Osirak reactor was destroyed in a bold air strike in 1981, preventing his desire to become a nuclear power from becoming reality. Iran is Israel's greatest enemy and it is unlikely Israel would not commit all of its resources to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Asides:

Belmont Club discusses Hamas' unwillingness to widen the attacks on Israelis outside of Israel/Palestine proper. Hezbollah, however, has had no such reservations in the past.

Note the AP's to references to Hamas and Khalil. They are not called terrorists. In fact, there are only two usages of the word terrorists in the article and both are directed at Israel; Syrian officials speak the words. Here is another AP classic: "Khalil had not engaged in any militant activity inside Syrian territory". He did, however, engage in "militant activities" in Israel and this is conveniently left out of the article.