In the wake of the atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, Israel has every right and reason to pursue a sustained military campaign aimed at dismantling the terrorist group, and Israelis appear determined to do so.
Yet they also need to heed US President Joe Biden’s words of caution. During his visit to Tel Aviv on Oct. 18, Biden empathized with the rage Israelis feel.
“I understand, and many Americans understand,” he said.
However, Biden also advised Israelis not to be consumed by their fury.
“After 9/11, we were enraged in the United States, and while we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes,” he said.
Two days later, in a television address, Biden reiterated his call for the Israeli government “not to be blinded by rage.”
What would it look like in practice for Israel to follow Biden’s advice? Which lessons should the Israeli government draw from the strategic mistakes that the US made after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks?
First, while Israel should use its military capability to hit narrowly defined military targets — Hamas leaders, command centers, weapons caches, and tunnels — officials should be under no illusion that brute force can achieve a desired political outcome. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US learned the hard way that superior military strength, while useful for eliminating adversaries, rarely produces the intended political objective.
Despite two decades of costly US involvement, Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban, while Iraq is beset by political dysfunction and communal cleavages. While Israel has no choice but to use force to defang Hamas, it must employ other instruments — diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, economic opportunity — to shape what comes next.
Second, although Israel’s military campaign might still be in its early stages, policymakers need to begin planning for governance of a post-Hamas Gaza. The US was caught flat-footed after dismantling the old order in Iraq and Libya — being unprepared to build something new only brought bedlam.
Israel needs to prepare now for the day after the fighting stops. Will it look to the Palestinian Authority to administer Gaza? What role would the UN play? Might it make more sense to assemble a coalition of the willing — such as the US, the EU, Egypt and Qatar — to oversee reconstruction and governance, at least at the outset?
Now is the time to begin addressing these questions.
Third, even as it embarks on a robust military campaign against Hamas, Israel should, to the extent possible, limit damage to Gaza’s physical and institutional infrastructure, otherwise it risks dooming the remaining population to prolonged suffering or even societal collapse.
The US unwisely dismantled Iraq’s governmental institutions, setting the stage for chaos, a tenacious Sunni insurgency and growing Iranian influence. Despite the ugly results in Iraq, NATO proceeded to shatter Libya’s political foundations, resulting in a failed state exploited by extremist groups and subject to enduring tribal division. If Israel levels much of Gaza, radicalism and violent extremism are likely to emerge from the rubble.
Finally, Israel needs to play the long game, keeping in mind that the US continues to suffer from the lasting damage produced by its strategic mistakes in the Middle East. Toppling Iraq’s government empowered Iran, which now has potent proxies — including Hamas — throughout the region. Afghanistan has descended into a humanitarian nightmare in the wake of the US withdrawal.
Moreover, the US’ reputation has not recovered from images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, reports of the CIA’s “rough” interrogation techniques, the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and the many drone strikes that took the lives of innocent civilians. These and other practices have indelibly tarnished the nation’s image in the court of world opinion.
Israel is already fighting an uphill battle in that same court. While Israel has a right to defend itself, and the murders and kidnappings committed by Hamas warrant forceful retaliation, the Israelis should bend over backwards to comply with international humanitarian law. That means minimizing the loss of civilian life, while ensuring a steady flow of medicine, food and fuel into Gaza.
Exercising such restraint would assuage the widespread political ire that Israel’s continued campaign against Hamas is sure to generate. It would also reduce the likelihood of the conflict widening into a regional war — make it easier to maintain the Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan; and eventually enable Israel and Saudi Arabia to resume talks on diplomatic normalization.
Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza would also shape the tenor of its future relationship with the Palestinian community. Hamas’ heinous attack, and the new round of violence it has spawned, has revealed that the previous “status quo” was untenable. Given that they live cheek-by-jowl, Israelis would never be secure unless Palestinians are as well, and vice versa. The two peoples eventually need to work together to secure a two-state solution that brings lasting peace.
Perhaps the tragedy of the current conflict can drive that reality home to Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Charles A. Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and the author of Isolationism: A History of America’s Efforts to Shield Itself from the World.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s