International human rights organizations such as Amnesty have accused Israel of committing war crimes in Lebanon, as there is enough evidence to prove that the Jewish state was deliberately bombing civilian targets. This is a serious allegation, particularly when it comes from an internationally recognized independent body. Not that Europeans are unaware of the enormity of Israel’s crimes in Lebanon and Gaza. Europe also knows that Israel would not stop the war and continue violating the Security Council cease-fire resolution.
This is the first time Israel had to fight in its own terrain while the valiant stance of the Hezbollah fighters exposed the inferior quality of Israeli-manufactured weapons. This would also mean, to make things worse, a sharp decline in the demand for Israeli weapons in the international market and consequent cancellation of some of the arms deals. Above all, Israel’s failure at the hands of the Hezbollah fighters points to the fallacy of the Zionist theory of depending solely on excessive military force to defend the national security of Israel.
The belief that exercising superior military might would ensure the peace and security of a country has been the underlying principle of Israel’s national security policy since its creation in 1948. Its founding fathers adopted this theory after they realized that myths and legends would not provide sufficient fuel to sustain a political state founded on the outmoded ethnic principles. They believed the continuity of their government and the security of the people and their establishments depended on exercising excessive military might as they did not believe in any other principles of political interaction with their neighbors on the basis of universally approved human values. The evicted Palestinians, numbering in millions, were struggling within and outside the state. Therefore the Israeli leaders and people have been obsessed with the idea of the invincibility and brutality of their defense forces. The widely accepted notion about maintaining a country’s security is striking cordial relations with one’s neighbors to the extent possible and only when peaceful strategies fail a country is forced to resort to military might. But Israel viewed that absolute power is the key to a country’s security. Israel also insisted that its neighbors act and behave in a manner that would always guarantee the protection of Israel’s security even if it meant a threat to the neighbor’s own security. This self-centered view of national security prompted Israel to reject all peace efforts with the neighboring Arab countries.
Israel’s greedy policy of grabbing its neighbors’ lands and its self-centered national security policy denying other’s right to exist suited the Zionist dream of establishing the mythical “greater” Israel sprawling between rivers Nile and Euphrates. Three principles drive the Zionist ambition of the “greater” Israel. First, occupation of the neighboring states and incorporating them into Israel after driving away all the original inhabitants.
Secondly, to stockpile weapons to make it an invincible military power in the world and thus enforce the Zionist hegemony all over the world.
Thirdly, to deny the neighboring Arabs all their rights by systematically breaking their political unity, destroying their military might and arresting their economic growth and eroding their educational progress.
The founder of Israel, David Ben Gurion, was a staunch supporter of the concept of linking the national security with the occupation of neighboring territories and elimination of the original inhabitants. Ben Gurion believed that the continuity of the Jewish nation was linked with the continuity of the State of Israel and so its defense needs were greater than any other state’s. He invented a difference between Israel and neighboring Arab enemies. The Arabs can destroy and eradicate Israel because it is very small while it is not possible for Israel to destroy millions of Arabs in the Middle East. “Therefore our security is ultimately linked to the continuous strengthening of our military forces,” he said.
This is the guiding principle of Israel’s security policy.
The vulnerability of this policy became evident in a serious encounter between Israel and the Lebanese resistance fighters, who do not enjoy even the status of a national army. Against the unmistakable failure of the much-hyped superior Israeli defense forces to drive out a bunch of Lebanese freedom fighters, the panicky Israeli leaders resorted to bombing blindly the civilians in Beirut. The Israeli leaders believed that their carpet-bombing would weaken the resistance and take out the battle away to locations outside its borders. What happened was just the reverse. The theory that everlasting security could be attained with sheer military might has been debunked. Israel has lost the war and accepted a cease-fire though it has not stopped the hostilities fully.
