Is Israel making war safer for ordinary people?
Exploding pagers, evildoers running through abandoned buildings and throwing sticks at the drone that finds them — with all the James Bond-esque razzle dazzle, we should not overlook the much bigger message underlying Israel’s conduct of the current conflict. We are witnessing a sea change in warfare, a transformation equivalent to the invention of chariots, siege engines, gunpowder, atomic bombs.
Israel has been field-testing a new methodology: not the occasional tactical assassination, but the targeting of entire groups of the adversary’s command structure, the leaders, planners, strategists and key implementers. It is too soon to say if this will become key features in its arsenal, whether it will prove effective in the long run, or what responses it will draw from others, ranging from imitation to asymmetric retaliation. But I see a very real chance that this might, at long last, be good news for civilians.
Wars have always been declared by the leaders, planned and executed by the generals, fought by the soldiers, and suffered by the population. Some rulers rode into battle, but more often, they issued orders from an elevated encampment, or later, from the White House Situation Room or the Situational Center in the Kremlin.
Of course, even if they avoided the trenches, leaders always had much to lose. A defeat could mean the end of their rule, their life, and even their empire. The risks associated with failure, however, too often inspired even greater recklessness. When it was clear that the war was lost, Hitler called up the 16-year-olds and the old men, launching them as cannon-fodder in an utterly hopeless last stand that he termed the “Peoples’ Storm.”
Japan’s kamikaze attacks were a similar act of desperation that commenced in October 1944, when the war was essentially over for Japan. These government-ordered suicide missions did not impact the outcome, but brought pointless grief to the families of 4,000 Japanese airmen and 8,000 Allied naval troops killed in this grisly attempt. It is easy to say, “Here’s an idea, let’s try it” when you are not going to be crashing yourself directly into an enemy ship or strapping yourself into a suicide vest. The revolutionary aspect of the emerging new Israeli approach is that, finally, the originators of these bright ideas might be the ones who pay the price.
The Nuremberg Trials brought some justice, and, in what we can now identify as the start of their “hold accountable those who give the orders” approach, the Israelis continued hunting down Nazi leaders and SS camp guards over the next decades.
Political analysts warn that while “decapitating” a militant group through the elimination of their most prominent leader is psychologically effective, the effect is temporary and a successor will be found. But in the past, such assassinations were usually a one-off. Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011, then 10 years passed before Ayman Al-Zawahiri followed.
What’s different now is that Israel is aiming beyond a symbolic act, instead working to disable the broader, high- and mid-level leadership and disrupt the chains of communication and succession.
They are also taking aim at the proxy’s masters and the enemy’s true command centers. The assassination of top Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh, in Tehran, is an outstanding example. The mysterious helicopter accident to which Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian fell victim, has not been claimed, but bears a suspiciously similar signature.
The initially most prominent victim was Nasrallah, but the list includes the infamous Yahya Sinwar; Hezbollah commander Eid Hassan Nashar; Nasrallah’s adviser Ali Karaki; Hezbollah’s Southern Front commander Samir Tawfiq Dib; the deputy head of Hezbollah’s Central Council, Nabil Kaouk; operational commander Ali Naaf Ayoub; senior Hezbollah commander Ibrahim Aqil; and head of Hezbollah’s medium-range rockets unit, Eid Hassan Nashar; leader of the Hamas Political Bureau Ismael Haniyeh; the head of Hamas’s military wing Mohammed Deif; and Iranian advisers including Revolutionary Guard General Abbas Nilforushan. To be continued…
In Gaza, and to an extent in Lebanon, this has not happened without significant civilian casualties. But if I am right and this is the dawn of a new era of warfare, civilians will need to recognize the significance and act accordingly. They must recognize that their fate is no longer inextricably bound to the fate of their leaders, and that the latter are now being held accountable for the actions taken on their orders. To live normal lives focused on the wellbeing of their families, they can now uncouple from irresponsible leaders both mentally and materially: denying them slavish obedience, and denying them the ability to hiding behind civilians.
It will be up to the Lebanese to resist becoming a nation-wide safe harbor for Hezbollah, to the Gazans to decide if they truly feel represented by Hamas.
It is too soon to say where this may lead, if we are indeed seeing a new age of warfare, how adversaries will respond. So far, Iran has not reacted innovatively, instead just launching its usual knee-jerk show of missiles.
Could this end up finally placing the greater burden and the greater cost on the instigators of conflicts, instead of the hapless conscripts and helpless civilians? The latter need to do their part, refusing to sacrifice themselves and their children for the crazed ideas and ambitions of irresponsible leaders. And we need to find ways to make that easier. In Lebanon, for example, helping the country rebuild and strengthen its own defenses and institutions can support their process of detaching from Hezbollah.