Before Another Escalation, Israelis Deserve Answers

I am not a military expert. I am an Israeli citizen asking whether, before risking another confrontation, every reasonable alternative to force has been exhausted.

Israelis have lived with war for too long. We know there are moments when military force is unavoidable and that governments sometimes possess information ordinary citizens cannot know.

I do not pretend to know the intelligence or operational considerations behind Israel’s recent air strikes in Syria. I write simply as a concerned citizen asking a basic question: before taking an action that could lead to another confrontation, have we done everything reasonably possible to avoid it?

That question matters especially when Turkey is involved. Whatever our profound disagreements with its government, Turkey is a major regional power and a member of NATO. A confrontation between Israel and Turkey could therefore carry consequences far beyond a single strike in Syria.

This is precisely why diplomacy should be the first consideration whenever circumstances permit.

Diplomacy is not weakness. It is one of the means by which governments protect their citizens. Israel and Turkey can communicate. The United States can mediate. Other governments can help clarify intentions and prevent miscalculation. Talking does not prevent Israel from defending itself when defense becomes necessary. It may prevent a crisis from reaching that point.

Perhaps the government possessed information showing that the danger was immediate and that military action could not wait. If so, the decision may have been justified. Citizens cannot expect sensitive intelligence to be disclosed.

But “security” should not end every discussion. When military action carries the possibility of widening a conflict, citizens are entitled to ask whether less dangerous alternatives were seriously pursued first.

There is also the approaching election.

I am not suggesting that the strikes were undertaken for electoral purposes. I have no basis for making such an accusation. My concern is what escalation can do to an election regardless of motive.

A serious security crisis can transform the political agenda overnight. Questions about the economy, social divisions, governmental responsibility, and the future direction of the country can suddenly be displaced by another emergency. A wider confrontation could even affect the circumstances in which Israelis are asked to vote.

That possibility should impose particular caution on a government approaching an election. An imminent threat must be confronted whenever it arises. But where there is time for diplomacy, consultation, and restraint, those avenues should be fully explored before taking action that may alter both the security and political reality of the country.

And behind all these questions lies the one that concerns me most: who pays if events go wrong?

Governments and commentators speak of deterrence, red lines, strategic interests, and freedom of action. Ordinary citizens experience war differently. We experience the reservist called away from home, the family waiting for news, the night in a shelter and, sometimes, the funeral of a young person who should have had an entire life ahead.

Israel has already buried far too many.

None of this means that Israel should hesitate when its security genuinely requires military action. It means that the threshold for risking another conflict must be extraordinarily high.

Military capability answers one question: Can we strike?

Political responsibility must answer another: Must we?

And before that answer is yes, Israelis deserve to know that every reasonable path away from another war has been tried.