Note: The translations of articles from the Hebrew press are prepared by the Government Press Office as a service to foreign journalists in Israel. They express the views of the authors.
New Red Lines
(Commentary by Boaz Ganor, "Ha'aretz", Jan 4, 1999, p. B2)
The strategic war against terrorism necessitates international cooperation
against terrorist organizations and the countries which sponsor them. I
believe that there is a need to strive to reach an international
definition of terrorism, which will be based on measurable criteria and
will enable the formulation of an international counter-terrorism
strategy.
Such a definition would be based on the rules of warfare established in
the Geneva and Hague Conventions. In these conventions, a distinction is
made between "legitimate" warfare, in the course of which military
personnel intentionally attack enemy military personnel, and activity
defined as a "war crime" -- an intentional attack by military personnel on
civilians.
Only the intentional attacking of civilians would be defined as a war
crime, and not a mistake made in battle or an attack on civilians without
prior intent. On this basis, a distinction should also be drawn between
terrorism, which is "the use or threat to use violence directed against
civilians, in order to achieve political, ideological, religious and other
objectives," and guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare is "the use or
threat to use violence directed against military and security personnel in
order to achieve political objectives."
Occasionally, terrorism and guerrilla warfare are based on the same
political objectives, which can be distinguished from each other only by
their targets and modus operandi. Thus, it can be determined that
guerrilla warfare is a form of warfare, while terrorism is a form of war
crime. The definition of terrorism as a war crime enables states to act
forcefully against terrorist apparatuses and can be a basis for
international cooperation.
States can use a wide range of defensive and offensive punitive measures
against terrorist organizations, as long as they do not violate the moral
criteria of the accepted rules of war, first and foremost the intentional
harming of civilians. True, these limitations make it difficult to conduct
the war against terrorism, but without them the state's moral basis to
fight terrorism is taken away.
The Israeli government's decision to change the rules of the game in
Lebanon and to restore the initiative to Israel by determining the "red
lines" vis-a-vis Hizballah, is a step in the right direction. The
agreements that were signed by the previous government at the end of
Operation Accountability and Operation Grapes of Wrath determined "red
lines" which sound fair but which in reality serve Hizballah -- the
principle of refraining from harming civilians.
Hizballah bolstered the principles that were set forth in the "red line,"
according to which any harming of civilians by Israel would lead to
retaliation against its citizens in the North. Hizballah, which operates
from inside civilian towns and which enjoys full civilian patronage,
fights against military personnel in Lebanon and any attack on it is
liable to lead to an unintentional attack on civilians.
It was clear to many that we must ourselves determine new red lines, the
main one being that the enemy pay a high price for any attack on the
Northern communities. The Israel Air Force's retaliation against Hizballah
targets has so far been unsuccessful in deterring the organization from
firing rockets at Israel. The attempts at large-scale ground operations in
Lebanon also failed to yield the desired results. What remains is to try
and attack other targets, which will put indirect pressure on Hizballah,
which will force it to reconsider any firing of rockets at Israel.
Pressure from the air should be directed against Lebanese and Syrian
military and security facilities in Lebanon -- against Lebanese Army
bases, headquarters and Syrian dispositions in Lebanon -- and not against
civilian targets. The pressure on Hizballah should come from the Lebanese
and Syrian governments, not from civilians. The intentional attacking of
civilian infrastructure will bring in its wake harsh international
criticism, pressure and sharp resolutions by the international community,
which will cause the decision to focus on civilian infrastructure targets
to be rescinded.
[The writer is director of the International Policy Institute for
Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.]