Amanda Ripley Author of The Unthinkable

Granted, his country is at war. But it was striking, listening to Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor talk at George Washington Hospital today, how little mention was made of any long-term strategy for a better, more peaceful future. I don’t know if it was cynicism, realism or myopia, but it was remarkable.

In his talk, which was set up by GW’s Homeland Security Policy Institute, Meridor detailed a three-point plan for combating terrorism generally and in Gaza specifically:

1. Be realistic. “Recognize that this is a threat that doesn’t have an easy answer.” A fair point, and something U.S. leadership has totally failed to do here. “The goals you set for yourself cannot and should not be total victory--total defeat of the enemy. You have to create a sense in your society of being ready to be patient, to persevere, to be able to overcome terror, to continue the routine of life with terror.”

2. Take military action: “[You] need a mix of partial deterrence, partial defense and defensive prevention.” In other words, build fences, hope, pray and pay for a better missile defense system, and pre-emptively strike at your enemies (or as the Ambassador so eloquently put it: “You must get as many of them as possible before they hit you.")

3. Get international cooperation. On this point, Meridor was less passionate and more vague. He spoke of “encouraging internal discourse, an authentic one, that would minimize the recruiting grounds on which they are thriving.” Aha. This would seem to be an exceptionally important point in an asymmetric war. Otherwise, you can (as Israel has proven time and again) obliterate the enemy and intimidate your neighbors--and you will still see homemade rockets dropping from the sky.

Forty-five minutes into his talk, Meridor touched on the importance of a long-term strategy for reducing the appeal of terrorism, but with breathtakingly little dedication: “Another thing I forgot to mention [emphasis mine]: we must find a way ot minimize this hatred [that is] spreading and at the same time offer another type of education and engagement for a young boy or girl.”

During the Q&A period, almost all of the questioners pressed the Ambassador to say more--to articulate a long-term vision for the campaign in Gaza and for reducing the spread of radicalism generally. He did not seem interested. “We do not have a grand political scheme for which we are fighting in Gaza. We were forced to defend ourselves and are doing that in order to provide for better security for our people. Period.”

To close the event, writer and professor Yonah Alexander thanked the Ambassador and suggested he come back one day to continue the conversation--to discuss for example how to combat an intellectual culture of death with a culture of life. An excellent idea. Sign me up, I thought. Meridor chuckled and said, “For that, you will have to find an intellectual. I am a diplomat.”

1

A B said on January 06, 2009 at 6:03 pm

You’ve missed the point. All Israeli sources carefully and deliberately avoid the question of “strategy for Gaza” or “aims of the operation in Gaza”. You can even see why, if you take a look at the 2nd Lebanon war.

2

JK said on January 16, 2009 at 1:43 am

There is only one problem in the Middle East: Israel.

3

DS said on January 16, 2009 at 2:52 pm

There is a more than subtle bias to this post regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza.

See, here’s the problem with the post; there wasn’t another one today deriding President Bush for proudly stating in his farewell speech that his greatest accomplishment has been in preventing further terrorist attacks on US soil.  Because effectively what the US did by invading Afghanistan was take the fight to where the terrorists were operating.  Along the way I’m sure thousands of innocent citizens were also killed and wounded but no one cared so much because of the heinous acts of September 11, 2001. 

So when Israel does the same thing, by pushing into Gaza to seek out Hamas and kills innocent victims because the terrorists are hiding behind them it’s genocide, it’s criminal and Israel must be held accountable. 

As for the earlier comment that the only problem in the Middle East is Israel I would like to ask if anyone thinks that by eliminating Israel that the radical Muslim fundamentalists will cease and desist their and being living a peaceful existence.  Because I’m thinking it will only reinforce terrorism and its inherent value and they will push onwards across the globe.

But perhaps terrorism is good content for inspecting and dissecting disaster scenarios so in the end it’s all good, eh?

4

Walter_E_Wallis said on January 26, 2009 at 5:52 am

The United States needs to return diplomacy to it’s original idea, reciprocity. Bad national acts need to cause bad national consequences. If Saidis prohibit the free practice of religions there, their freedom must be equally suppressed here. Nations that punish the rape victim must be excluded from free movement within decent society and and nationally approved attack against another people must be viewed as an act of war, and those laws that restore lost lands to a loosing aggressor must be replaced by laws that make the land from which an attack is launched against another forfeit if taken.

5

Chicago mover said on August 31, 2010 at 9:10 am

Israeli Ambassador: Strategy is for Sissies - Great topic to discuss and I very much like the comment by Walter_E_Wallis.

Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?