The Deficiencies of Ceasefires and Self-Defense

Democratic leadership continues to endanger and undermine Israel. The latest example is the repeated endeavors by the Biden-Harris administration for a ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah. It follows President Biden’s calls for a proportional Israeli response to the Iranian bombing of Israel. The administration’s fealty to a policy of restraint and diplomacy has become blinding, if not incredulous.

President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are fixated on preventing conflict or its expansion in the Middle East. Their fixation comes at a price. Ceasefires and restraint regarding conflict with Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis do not facilitate opportunities for peace and security. They only kneecap Israel. Ceasefires and restraint require Israeli sacrifices, a weakening of Israeli leverage, an obfuscation of their justification, and opening the door to further vulnerability and additional criticism of Israel.

Biden and Harris claim to be champions of the right to self-defense. They believe Israel is justified to respond to any attack or the imminent attack of an enemy. They repeatedly proclaimed this right following Hezbollah’s July 28 attack on the Golan Heights and Iran’s ballistic missile attack on October 1.

However, their proclamations are misleading, problematic, and troubling.

Their belief in the right to self-defense is contingent on the idea that an Israeli response should not trigger a full-blown war or the defeat of the enemy. The idea is embodied by Biden’s call for a proportional response to Iran and a ceasefire with Hezbollah after days of violence. For Democratic leadership, restraint and the cessation of violence enable diplomacy and settlements.

Limiting Israel’s ability to respond or expecting a ceasefire allows Israel to survive in the short term but it cannot thrive in the long term.

Defending and then relying on diplomacy does not extricate Israel from a dangerous predicament. Israel resides among neighbors who seek its demise. Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis perceive diplomatic settlements as temporary measures. It provides them reprieves, the opportunity to regroup, rearm, and further entrench themselves to continue their aggression and eventual elimination of Israel.

A reliance on restrained self-defense also puts Israel at the mercy of interpretations and aggressors.

Firstly, who determines whether an Israeli attack that preempts a Hezbollah attack is an act of self-defense? Joe Biden? Kamala Harris? Biden and Harris do not reside in Israel’s hostile neighborhood. It is not their citizens who are exposed to an attack or bombing. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

Secondly, how is a proportional response determined? Could Israel have fired 200 ballistic missiles at Iran? Iran would have been challenged to shoot down that number of missiles and possibly suffer considerable damage. Is the proportional response connected to proportional damage?

Lastly, a proportional response surrenders power to the aggressor. The level or duration of the response is pre-determined by the initiator. They decide how much they are willing to endure before launching the attack. In other words, Iran dictates the intensity of fighting based on the idea of proportionality. Israel becomes beholden to Iranian calculations.

The Biden-Harris call for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is equally perplexing, if not an abomination.

They place Israel in a compromised and vulnerable position. It is tantamount to letting an organization with American and Israeli blood on its hands the opportunity to catch its breath. Why does Biden, Harris and others want Hezbollah to survive and fight another day? Hezbollah has no intention of abandoning its weapons. To add insult to injury, Hezbollah started the conflict with Israel. Hezbollah launched an unprovoked attack and for a year refused to cease its attacks.

Additionally, creating an opportunity for a diplomatic settlement through the establishment of a ceasefire is wishful thinking. Hezbollah will not be a partner to talks because they do not represent Lebanon. Furthermore, if a settlement can be achieved with the Lebanese government, it will never be enforced. The Lebanese government is feckless and has been for decades. It cannot compel Hezbollah to obey a settlement. The only outcome of diplomacy is Hezbollah resting, regrouping, and rearming.

Implementing a ceasefire also imposes two less than desirable options on Israel. They can wait for the next Hezbollah attack on its territory in solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinian people. Or Israel can end the ceasefire and resume their attacks on Hezbollah. In the event of the former, Israeli citizens are vulnerable. In the event of the latter, Israel is portrayed as the aggressor.

How the Biden-Harris administration argues for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is also unbecoming of an ally. Their September 25 statement employs false equivalency. The statement creates the illusion that the displacement of citizens in Israel and Lebanon are the product of similar circumstances. It does not attribute any blame and responsibility to Hezbollah. They have equivocated Hezbollah’s (a non-state actor) unprovoked aggression with Israel’s self-defense.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are engaged in statecraft malpractice. They would not enact these policies if the shoe was on the other foot and America faced similar enemies along its borders.  Americans would not tolerate it. Yet, they expect their long-time ally to endure danger and humiliation. The administration’s blind advocacy of self-defense and ceasefires in the Middle East is deficient.