Yaron London
Photo: Yonatan Davis
The fear factor
Hamas, unlike post-Lebanon War Hizbullah, is not scared to fire at us
Those who object to war are very right. They are always right. On the other hand, those who support war are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. The righteousness of those who object to war is immediately apparent, because avoiding war spares blood and death, while the righteousness of those who support war is never absolute.
The reason for this is that the price of war is exacted immediately upon the opening shot, while the benefits of victory are reaped only after the dust settles. Moreover, often history abuses the righteous victors and pampers the defeated evil parties.
The conclusion is that one should never embark on war, and this perception is espoused by many of my colleagues, who object to a decisive move against Hamas and appear to be able to convince public opinion, which has sustained a blow during the Second Lebanon War.
This perception gives rise to complex explanations. Just recently we saw a witty commentator recommend a ceasefire with Hamas, both because we would do a better job than the Islamic group in preparing for the next war and because during the lull Hamas may take over the whole of Palestinian society. Is that a good thing?
Those who recommend this approach say that it would be better to allow the Islamic movement to complete its takeover of Palestinian society, because then it would be forced to assume full responsibility for its fate and turn from reckless opposition to a satisfied establishment, thus hesitating to risk its status. Its assets and the full weight of responsibility would turn it into a pragmatic movement that is open for business.
Proof of this, according to this theory, is the restraint displayed by Syria and Hizbullah, which are able to cause us much greater damage than what Hamas can do and whose intentions are no less malicious.
If we take this logic to the point of absurdity, we would conclude that it is better to nurture crazed murderers and sustain their blows until they establish themselves and take care to protect their assets. I skip any mention of the historical examples that prove the weakness of this assumption, because I’m certain everyone is familiar with them. Those who listen closely to the words uttered by Hamas leaders reach the conclusion that the institutionalizing of this movement would turn it into a small Iran, rather than the PLO.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad not scared
Fear is the main factor why Hizbullah has not dared bother us since the end of the war, and this is also the main reason why Syria shows restraint in the face of the attack that has been attributed to us. The source of this fear is our conduct during the war; namely, the rash conduct that Olmert and his government have been blamed for.
Nasrallah admitted to this indirectly when he said that had he foreseen such a wild Israeli reaction, he would not have abducted our troops.
Instilling fear from our reaction, rather than the removal of Hizbullah fighters from the border area, will be recorded as our greatest achievement during the war. This achievement is even more meaningful than the many flaws that have been discovered during the war and the painful gap between the war’s objectives and results.
All of Nasrallah’s arrogant chatter, the contempt he directs at us, and the threats regarding future revenge do not change the fact that his militiamen hold rallies and marches, jump around with weapons held against their chest, but are not shooting.
On the other hand, Hamas and Islamic Jihad members are certainly shooting. They are shooting because they are not scared. They are not scared not because they are fearless a as a result of their faith, but rather, because we haven’t frightened them enough.
Fear is a basic human quality. One can boost his resistance to fear, but it is impossible to completely become immune to it. The relevant question is not about the validity of the principle of deterrence, but rather, what is the attacked party willing to do in order to scare the attacker, and to what extent is the attacker immune to counterattacks.
