Catch-22: Israel is not allowed to target Hamas anywhere

Those who object to justified collateral damage and also to the accurate assassination of terrorist leaders leave Israel no option whatsoever to defend itself.

Walter E. Block | August 14, 2024

People walk past a billboard showing a newly appointed leader Yahya Sinwar (top) next to Palestine Square in the Tehran on August 12, 2024 | Photo: AFP/Atta Kenare 

On July 27, 2024, Hezbollah caused the deaths of a dozen Druze children playing in a soccer field in the town of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights. These tragedies resulted from an Iranian missile fired by this terrorist organization.

Hard on the heels of this latest atrocity, a series of assassinations took place, courtesy of the IDF. Hezbollah’s top commander, Fuad Shukar, was killed in Beruit. Muhammad Deif, a senior Hamas commander, was slain in Gaza. In Damascus, Ami Ali Hajizadeh, an Iranian general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, met this well-deserved fate. The top political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, was dealt with in a similar manner even though he was heavily guarded by his hosts in Tehran.

Immediately following these events, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for an all-out attack on Israel. No news from that quarter. Ho hum. That is the constant refrain we hear from that neck of the woods.

This was far from the only downside mentioned regarding this IDF retaliation. Another is that such assassinations in the past have merely hardened the resolve of Israel’s enemies. A second commentator put the matter this way: “Israel’s assassination policy only makes Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran more determined.”

So, lopping off the head of the monster simply does not work. Tell that to any nation in the midst of losing any war. Does only the carrot work, never the stick? Should cops not aim at gang leaders?

Then there is the argument that “The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Iran’s capital, Tehran … silenced a moderating voice in the Hamas leadership…”

We can’t have that, can we? Haniyeh was really a friend of Israel. Who knew? In this vein, according to President Joe Biden, well, at least according to his puppet masters, this act “doesn’t help” ceasefire talks. This is as if the main goal of a country fighting a defensive war is to arrange for a ceasefire. The US did no such thing in World War II, did they? No, the US pressed for surrender, not negotiations.

Next up in the batter’s box is this doozy: These justified killings “serve no purpose except the ego of some Israeli machos.” Well, at least some Israelis gain, thereby.

Now consider this one: This attack is clearly a grave violation of the sovereignty of Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza. What? Was Israel’s sovereignty not violated on October 7? Is the nation not justified in returning the favor? Must it keep its mitts off of the invaders and not violate their sovereignty? Whodathunk?

Israel has long been blamed for collateral damage. This country was told to wield a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Sorry, not “told”; this was a demand on the part of all too many self-styled decent commentators. The IDF did exactly that with the assassinations of a very few individuals, leaders of Hamas. But then it is castigated for following precisely that policy. Israel was blamed, in effect, for engendering World War III. Heads, Israel loses. Tails, too.

Let us get clear on this. Israel may not kill innocent civilians, even though they are used as shields. Rocket placements occur in Mosques, residential areas, schools, playgrounds, and hospitals. They are all off-limits to the IDF. Fair enough. Who could object to such a reasonable critique of the IDF? (If my sarcasm is not coming through here, I don’t know what to do). Also off-limits are terrorists and their leaders. Again, who could object? (Sarcasm, once again). So, who remains? No one. If Israel is to gain the support of the world, it may aim its weaponry at no one at all! That is, Israel must turn the other cheek after the atrocity of October 7. (I need no longer specify the year; this one date is so famous; it is sort of like 9/11). The only Jewish state in the world must adopt full pacifism.

But wait. That does not mean Israel is prevented from doing anything in its self-defense. It may appeal to the UN! Surely, it will obtain justice there. So what if this organization has condemned Israel twice as often as all other nations on the planet put together? To demonstrate that many avenues are open to the only civilized country in the Middle East, it may seek to resolve the problems it faces at the hands of the International Criminal Court. So what if this court has condemned Netanyahu as a war criminal? Surely, these splendid jurists will condemn Israel’s enemies. That will surely put a spoke in the wheels of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and their puppet master, Iran. That will make them come to their senses and cease and desist from attempting to eradicate the Jewish state from the face of the earth.

On a more serious note, those who object to eminently justified collateral damage and also to the accurate assassination of terrorist leaders leave Israel no option whatsoever to defend itself. Is there any other nation that world opinion would attempt to paint into such a corner? Of course not.

Critics of Israel were particularly incensed that the Israeli assassination team meted out justice to the scholar and peacemaker Haniyeh in Tehran. Who do those dirty Jews think they are, trespassing on the holy territory of Iran! It was perhaps alright that the IDF hunted down Adolf Eichmann in Mexico, but it is totally unacceptable that they did something similar in this country. In the child’s game of tag, you were not supposed to lay a hand on your opponent when he was safely ensconced at home base, provided he said, “Home, home free.” Well, maybe Saint Haniyeh forgot to say these words. Or perhaps the fact that Israel is engaging in self-defense against its terrorist enemies is not a child’s game. Maybe the next time these despicable people plan another October 7, they will think twice about it.

If Lichtenstein attacked Germany with a missile barrage, would the latter pulverize the former? Not at all. They are far too civilized to do any such thing. Rather, the Germans would assume this terror from the skies was an accident. They would insist upon working cooperatively with the Lichtensteiners to ensure that no such occurrence could take place in the future.

But suppose this small principality stated that this attack was purposeful and, moreover, would occur again and again in the future. Then, we would witness the utter annihilation of that tiny country. The Germans would not be put off by issues of collateral damage, assuming Lichtenstein adopted the policy of using its citizenry as shields. The German military would not hesitate to assassinate the leaders of its enemy. The Germans would do whatever they had to do to ensure that never again would anything like this outrage be perpetrated upon them. And world opinion would assess Germany to have acted righteously.

Why the a difference in this case? This can only be put down to Israel Derangement Syndrome.