Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said the other day that he was surprised by Israel's response to its border incursion and the killing, kidnapping, and bombing of Israel. It never expected Israel to launch a war over just two kidnapped soldiers. He expected Israel to respond, but in a tit-for-tat kind of way, leading to a prisoner exchange.
In other words, he was counting on a "proportional response".
There was even just a hint of grievance in his words, suggesting that Hezbollah had been blind-sided by the Israeli response, that Israel wasn't playing fair, or by terrorist rules.
Terrorists favour binding a sovereign nation to a proportional response.
Knowing that a state is limited to a proportional response makes it safe for terrorists to do their work. It's a ground-rule they favour. It turns kidnapping and murder into a proportional game that can be safely played. It allows the terrorists to enjoy the continued support of the native population within which they reside.
What he was not counting on was a disproportionate response made on Israel's terms.
The nations of the world, with the notable exception of the Anglosphere (USA/Canada/Australia) immediately attempted to tie Israel's hands and restrict its response, as if they ought to be bound to the same scope and proportionality as the terrorists. What is needed is for aggrieved nations to be free to make an "unpredictable response" to an unprovoked attack. Sometimes take the blow, sometimes respond in-kind, sometimes, a massive retaliation. Terrorists should never know what the response will be.
Terrorists heartily endorse the dogma of proportional response.
Should we?
1 comment:
Looking for information and found it at this great site... Lexus hybride ativan Hacking sprint phones waterbeds How to stop smoking florida Laptop cases umax ppc Accutane jersey lawyer new
Post a Comment