Fighting the wolves at the gate

The shepherd tends his flock at night as the wolves are ever present. He increases his control of the space around his pastures to establish a buffer for his sheep; to keep the wolves out of range. Finally he yields some of that space back to the wolves only to see the attacks against his sheep increase to the point that he begins to lose them to the wolves. What do we expect shepherds to do? We expect them to protect their sheep - to provide tranquility for their grazing and to defend them from the wolves.

The Catholic Church clearly states that peace is not simply the absence of war and that it is indeed a "tranquility of order" that is described as basic freedom. Well, Israel has experienced neither to the extent that we know it here in the US or in much of the western world today - and yet in relative terms it is an island of peace compared to the lives that Arabs live throughout the Middle East and Muslims live in Central Asia at the hands of their own regimes. In fact, until the War on Terror, Israel was the only nation in the region to grant Arabs a legitimate right to vote.

Aquinas teaches us from centuries ago that a "peace" can exist that is so brutal and corrupt that only war can establish or restore true human dignity and respect. Indeed Aquinas addresses war not as justice but as charity - that is, an act of love. Thus we have not only a right but a duty to achieve true peace and to provide legitimate defense for peace. Our common Christian tradition applies our scriptures to our world in a way that we have discerned four primary conditions for a Just War to do just that. They are 1) the threat must be lasting, grave and certain; 2) other means to counter the threat are ineffective; 3) there is a likelihood of success; 4) the actions taken must be proportionate to the threat.

So let us examine this current crisis in the Middle East in the context of Just War conditions.

Condition 1 – Lasting, grave, and certain

Israel has been fighting for its very survival since the day of its modern birth as a state. The threat of its total destruction has lasted its entire existence; and based on the words of its stated enemies that threat continues to exist (most starkly and alarmingly articulated by Iran in the last year; Iran who is the primary supporter of Hezbollah).

The Israelis have tolerated a level of violence for decades - a level that we would consider grave if it happened to us. They have had to live with it. But even their tolerance level knows its limits and when their survival is truly at stake. That day has arrived for them - again. According to STRATFOR.com (the best open source intelligence organization in the world in my opinion) the kidnappings of Israeli soldiers both by Hamas and Hezbollah demonstrated a new level of sophistication Israel has not seen before. In addition, the arms used by Hezbollah also are proving that they represent a far graver threat to Israel than they ever have before - now they can cause mass casualties within Israel itself. That is new and that is grave.

This threat has always existed and isn't going away. The militant threat to Israel is the very definition of "certain." There have been attacks from Gaza every day since the Israeli pullout a year ago and the Intifadah has never really abated. How many wars will Israel have to fight to prove to the UN and mainline Christian churches that the threat is certain? What is the level of violence we expect Israel to accept - while we are unwilling to accept anything close to what many in the West arrogantly expect Israel to "live" with? Chirac of France has already indicated he might use nukes if Muslim countries carried out or sponsored terrorist, WMD attacks in France - how many people and how much property do we think Israel should allow to be destroyed before they may defend themselves?

Hezbollah, Hamas and principal sponsor Iran have made it abundantly clear that they want to destroy Israel. Their desire and the real threat behind it are incontrovertibly lasting, grave, and certain.

Condition 2 - Other means ineffective

In an effort to give land for peace - both by withdrawing from Gaza and from southern Lebanon - Israel has received nothing but rocket attacks from those same areas every day. In 1998, at the Wye River negotiations, Ehud Barak offered almost everything Yasir Arafat had long demanded from Israel and yet he turned it down. (Dennis Ross, the US ambassador to the negotiations, has said that Barak agreed to “ninety-five percent” of Arafat’s long-stated demands.)

Fatah and Hamas continue not to be able to get their acts together to work for peaceful coexistence with Israel while Israel has reached out (peaceful coexistence has become a modern criteria of world harmony by the western world, including the Church). Hezbollah has received ever increasing training and aid from Syria and Iran while al Qaeda has worked diligently to make inroads in Palestinian refugee camps. Every action of the enemies of Israel points in only one direction - its destruction, not peaceful coexistence. They have only sought to buy time and the evidence today is that they believe their time has come or is close enough to provoke Israel. Diplomacy has consistently proved to be a failure. The fact is that the countless peace conferences over the decades have simply proven not that Israel’s interests and its enemies can be reconciled, but precisely that they cannot.

Condition 3 - Likelihood of success

Success is a word that we cannot often even imagine applying to the Middle East (though there have been some amazing successes there in the last five years such as the region has never known before). Yet there are examples of success that Israel has experienced with its neighbors in the past and that serve as a precedent that Israel should not be forced to exist under constant violence.

Israel’s former state enemies, Egypt and Jordan, are now at peace with Israel following past wars. They have diplomatic relations and serve as important intermediaries for one another. They are proof that peaceful coexistence is attainable. Also, the vast majority of Arab nations are not rushing to help Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel (except Syria and Iran who are real culprits and stand outside the current tide of history in that region). Indeed many are angered at these groups for creating a fight the region as a whole does not want.

Until now Syria had an under-the-table agreement with Israel to leave Israel alone while Israel left Lebanon alone and under tacit Syrian control - even with the withdrawal of Syrian forces last year. However, Syria has strengthened its surrogate Hezbollah while Syria in turn serves as a surrogate to Iran. What Syria needs is a change of sponsorship from Iran to someone else. Lebanon also benefits more from an Israeli victory; their problem is that they have been too weak to throw off the Syrian and Hezbollah yoke.

Can Syria and Lebanon come to experience the same peace with Israel that Egypt and Jordan enjoy? Yes, they can – but only if Hezbollah is neutralized. Israel is seeking to eliminate that problem for them. (Syria also would have to dissociate itself from Iran, a very tough problem even if it wanted to do so).

Condition 4 - Proportion

The differences here are compelling and stark. Israel targets military/infrastructure that is related to supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. There have been civilian losses but those are not the purpose of the strikes and are amazingly contained. Indeed Israel has sought to limit these casualties by leaflet drops in the civilian areas wherein Hezbollah and Hamas operate. This effort has come at the cost of operational surprise (that is, warning the enemy at the same time as warning the civilians) but it has saved countless lives.

On the other hand Hezbollah purposely targets Israeli civilians and makes no bones or apologies about it. The rocket fired from southern Lebanon over the last few years have been indiscriminately directed at Israeli towns and civilians. And the common practice of suicide-bomb attacks almost exclusively targets civilians. Again, how many sheep must Israel sacrifice? What level of violence must Israel accept that we utterly reject for ourselves?

Hezbollah needs to be eliminated in Lebanon and Hamas needs to be encouraged to continue their transition to a political entity. Hezbollah has only been getting stronger under Iranian support and the time may soon be coming for Israel when taking action is too late. Hamas needs to know that its example is Jordan and Egypt not Hezbollah.

The implications of the crisis for the US are significant. We are learning the hard way this summer that our enemies do not fear us. North Korea sees the sweet deal we have offered Iran and wants some of the action. Iran sees how stretched our military is and only has to listen to Al Gore and Rep John Murtha to ascertain how weak we are (in their words anyway). Why shouldn't they exploit their opportunity now?

We need to change that perception - indeed we are morally obligated to do so for our own sense of peace and legitimate defense. We need to revive the idea of "peace through strength" and convince our enemies that we are not to be trifled with. Our paramount duty is drastically to increase the size of our military so that deterrence is once again given a chance to work. That is the most moral thing we can do over the next few years.

As for now, the most moral thing Israel can do is to protect its people and rid itself of the cancer of Hezbollah. Israel must act as a good shepherd acts by engaging the wolves that threaten its sheep.