The case for “Dresdenization” of Hamas and Hezbollah territory

Why wait for genocidal Iran to have nukes?

Howard Rotberg |   Aug 27, 2024

Howard Rotberg   Courtesy

Why are Israeli defensive actions categorized as a pre-emptive strike on Iran when Israel, under missile attack from Iran and its proxies, has had to remove tens of thousands of its citizens from the north and has been subject to the taking of, and abuse and murder of, its citizens as hostages.

If Hamas doesn’t return the civilian hostages by the anniversary date of October 7, 2024, and stop firing missiles, then Israel might:

1. Bomb Iran’s oil fields,
2. Consider following the historical lead of America and Britain in February, 1945 at Dresden Germany, and firebomb Gaza.

Of course, Dresdenization would not go over well in a world hostile to Israel and that must be taken into into account before any such radical measures. Without clear backing from America and other western nations, and without a lessening of antisemitism and anti-Israelism from the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the boycotters, etc. and bearing in mind the increasing power of Islamist and Marxist governments, the suggestions above may not be realistic. But that doesn’t mean that such measures should not be discussed.

Hence this essay.

From the Urban Dictionary:

The Washington Post reported that Iran’s April strike on Israel – hundreds of missiles which were shot down- marked the first time it had struck Israel from its soil. Recently, an Iranian official warned that if Israel struck at their nuclear sites, they could reconsider their official stance on the development of nuclear weapons and potentially target Israeli nuclear facilities.

If Iran attacks Israel inside Israeli borders and causes great harm and/or if Iran continues its path to nuclear bombs, it may be time to bomb Tehran and other locations in Iran. Eventually it may become necessary to stop appeasing our enemies, including the Obama/Biden/Blinken/Harris crowd in Washington. Most of the Arab world would secretly cheer Israel on. I would argue that the wimpy and woke Europeans and Democrats in the U.S. have forfeited their right to criticize Israeli actions by tolerating massive antisemitism in their countries.

An attack by Iran inside Israel’s borders would constitute an existential crisis for Israel that can only be met with maximum force. It’s up to Iran to keep its militias, missiles, and proxies outside Israel proper or suffer the consequences. Eventually the full scope of Hamas murder and torture and sexual abuse of the hostages will become clear as will the full scope of western appeasement and toleration of Islamist evil.

How long will it take to understand that Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Palestinian Authority can never be given a separate state carved out of Israel as long as they continue their terrorism and education of their children to aspire to killing Jews?

In April, 350 rockets were fired at Israel by Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. The attack included about 170 drones, more than 30 cruise missiles and more than 120 ballistic missiles. Nearly all were intercepted, according to the Israeli military and the White House. The United States, Jordan and Britain also took part in intercepting the attack. It is not sustainable for Israel to spend huge sums of money to shoot down the missiles; having the capability is one thing, but bankrupting your country to use the high-tech anti-missile options is another thing. It is reported that each interceptor missile of the Iron Dome costs Israel between $40,000 and $50,000.

On August 25, 2024, approximately 100 IAF fighter jets, directed by IDF intelligence, struck and destroyed thousands of Hezbollah rocket launcher barrels that were located and embedded in southern Lebanon. Most of these launchers were aimed toward northern Israel and some were aimed toward central Israel. More than 40 launch areas in Lebanon were struck during the strikes.

Some 6,000 rockets, UAVs and launchers that Hezbollah had planned to fire at Israel were destroyed. This is classic pre-emption.

Residents of the north sent an open letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant: “For ten months we have been suffering from dozens of rocket attacks almost every day, so far with almost no significant response, except for targeted assassinations and attacks that have not created deterrence.”

“This time do not give in. The red line has been crossed long ago and this time Israel must respond to the attack and not give in. Pound Hezbollah to the Litani, create a security zone within Lebanese territory, and remain with a long-term victory. We support the IDF soldiers, security forces, the Israeli government in any response that will be significant.”

Israel sometimes terms its actions for self-defence such as on August 25th as “preventative” actions, taking out missile sites especially where intelligence shows the sites are being readied for missile launches. However, at some point we should acknowledge that the technical prevention of specified threats should be superseded by general pre-emptive strikes in recognition of the enemy’s long term war strategy.

Is a “pre-emptive strike” the best alternative as Iran readies its nuclear weapons, which it has promised to use against the Jewish state?

And can we recognize that Iran has launched so many missiles that much of northern Israel is now Judenrein and actions in response to losing effective control of so much land is more than “pre-emptive”.

Israelis from the north are now refugees in their own country and one lesson of the Shoah surely is that with such exterminationist actions by Iran and its proxies, (supported implicitly by many other countries) it is time to stress a policy of Never Again.

Let our friends and enemies alike be made to understand the meaning of Never Again. Turning the other cheek and limiting retaliation to measured “tit for tat” responses is not winning the war.

Those who counsel appeasement of evil are not our friends – nor are those who take the position that the October 7th massacres should be a reason for a “two-state” solution that would allow future Hamas or similar groups to kill more Jews.

Will America and Britain try to make the case that Dresdenization was permissible for them to win World War 2 but not for Israel to win its existential war against Islamism?

Biden and Blinken tried to bully Israel against going into Rafah where Israel destroyed over 150 tunnels leading to Egypt (from where arms in massive amounts entered Gaza for years) and an entire terrorist brigade, and they were unconscionably willing to hold back the delivery of certain weapons needed by Israel. Are they misguided about the best way to deal with Iran’s terror tactics?

The contribution of money to the mullahs and removal of sanctions is an astounding submission to evil.

Israel is delaying another pre-emptive strike because Biden/Blinken/Harris have threatened not to back Israel in the event of such a strike. But it is obvious to me, given that Iranian missiles have caused the evacuation of 80,000 to100,000 Israelis from their homes in Northern Israel, it is incorrect to categorize any Israeli military actions as “pre-emptive”.

Surely, such actions would be in defense of Israeli sovereignty and ability of its citizens to live in peace. America therefore is again bullying Israel not to defend itself and “pre-emptive” does not apply to Israel military responses as much as “self-defence”.

In fact then Israel does not have America’s protection; rather American failure to deliver promised weapons are a signal to the world that America, despite old Joe Biden’s statement to the contrary does not have American protection. America seeks to deter Israel more than it does Iran, or else an Israeli “pre-emptive” strike with American support would have long ago been underway.

Before we discuss the best way to deal with existential threats from parties that do not respect the laws of warfare, let us examine the history of World War 2.

Encyclopædia Britannica states that throughout the war, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had called for increased British air raids against the population centres of Germany in order to swamp German authorities and services, particularly transportation, with hordes of refugees. As the Allied forces closed in on the Third Reich in 1945, such targets became more feasible because of the air superiority and improved navigation techniques of the Anglo-American bomber force.

Britannica says that “Before World War II, Dresden was called ‘Florence on the Elbe’ and was considered one of the world’s most beautiful cities because of its architecture and art treasures. Having never previously been attacked in the war, the city offered increased value for terror bombing against an inexperienced population.

On the night of February 13, 1945, the British Bomber Command hit Dresden with an 800-bomber air raid, dropping some 2,700 tons of bombs, including large numbers of incendiaries. Aided by weather conditions, a firestorm developed, incinerating tens of thousands of people.

The U.S. Eighth Air Force followed the next day with another 400 tons of bombs and carried out yet another raid by 210 bombers on February 15. It is thought that some 25,000–35,000 civilians died in Dresden in the air attacks, though some estimates are as high as 250,000, given the influx of undocumented refugees that had fled to Dresden from the Eastern Front. Most of the victims were women, children, and the elderly.”

The allies did not, as Israel does today, drop leaflets or make phone calls asking civilians to move out of combat zones. Unlike today’s Islamist terrorists, soldiers then were in uniform, making civilian deaths less likely, but the Allies bombed civilians.

The February 13th attack on Dresden was preceded by British Bomber Command’s Blind Illuminator dropping explosives and incendiaries over the city. Then, “visual marker” aircraft swooped low to drop thousands of flares and fire-target markers. The main attack formation followed: over 500 heavy “Lancaster” bombers loaded with explosives and incendiaries. The U.S. Eighth Air Force attacked the next day with another 400 tons of bombs and launched yet another raid with 210 bombers on February 15.

With the German Luftwaffe destroyed and anti-aircraft defenses in shambles, the Royal Air Force lost only six planes, while the Germans had to deal with a firestorm.

Thousands of small fires merged into a powerful firestorm that created such powerful winds that it sucked oxygen, fuel, broken structures and people into its flames.

In part to prevent right-wing ideologues from exploiting widespread speculations about the death toll, the city of Dresden set up a historical commission in 2004 to produce more precise data with historical, military, forensic and archeological research. In 2010, it published a revised estimate of 22,700 to 25,000 dead, down from previous estimates of over 100,000.

To put the numbers in context, historians note that both sides were losing large numbers of soldiers in the last two months of the war in Europe. As was the situation with the nuclear attacks on Japan, these massive bombings may have shortened the war which otherwise might have dragged on for many more months with the potential for many more dead. Historians can debate whether the immediate major bombing in both Dresden and Hiroshima cost more lives than had the war continued without a clear victory with lesser bombing over time.

History.com notes that as shocking as such an enormous number of dead is, it did not stand out in the war’s history of “strategic bombing” of cities. Most German cities had been flattened by 1945, and many left higher proportionate death rates and degrees of destruction. The bombing of Hamburg in July 1943 generated the first large firestorm and killed more than 30,000 civilians. And while the German Blitz over England became the subject of many books and movies, the Luftwaffen raids on Eastern European cities such as Belgrade (more than 17,000 dead) or Warsaw (up to 25,000 dead) were far more deadly—to say nothing of non-nuclear city bombings in Japan.

The bombing of Dresden not only meant the death of civilians but the destruction of a centre of European culture and Baroque splendor. Since the rule of August the Strong (1670-1733), the “German Florence” on the Elbe, was home to famous collections of art, porcelain, prints, scientific instruments and jewelry.

In my view, the targeting of such a centre of culture carried the message that the embrace of Naziism dwarfed any cultural greatness of Germany; In today’s world of cultural relativism it is important to view cultural achievements as diminished when a culture embraces evil.

Britain and America were later criticized for what some saw as a late bombing as the war was almost over in February 1945. Dresden was a densely crowded city in the winter of 1945, filled with refugees fleeing the advancing Red Army. Critics of the scale of this bombing suggest with the benefit of hindsight, the end of the war looked near and inevitable, and a full-scale attack was thought to be unnecessary.

But History.com states that “allied strategists, however, were afraid of allowing the Wehrmacht to regroup within Germany’s border if they eased on their pressure. The U.S. Army alone had suffered almost 140,000 casualties from December to January 1945 and 27,000 in the week prior to the Dresden bombing alone—the heaviest losses in the Western Allies’ war against Hitler.”

And so History.com notes that while the Dresden bombing was a terror campaign that dealt a devastating assault on civilians and cultural sites, it was part of a war in which such tactics had been widely used.

Whether we look at the Germans in Europe or the Japanese, it is clear that none of the major parties to this war were calling for ceasefires as it was clear that WW2 would only end in a rousing defeat for Germany and Japan; the enormous loss of life and property was weighed against the evil regimes that had to be completely defeated with their evil deeds requiring from them apologies and reparations.

What are the similarities and differences between the British and American fire bombing of Dresden with Israel’s attempt to follow the horrible murders, rapes and desolation by Hamas on October 7, 2023 by a “total victory” to prevent Hamas from living on to commit more atrocities?

Since there would be no hostages without Iranian support and direction, I would agree with American Senator Lindsay Graham, speaking on Fox TV that Israel should demand the immediate release of surviving hostages and dead bodies, failing which Israel, with American support, should bomb the Iranian oilfields.

International news organizations like Reuters and Associated Press typically report without factual basis the death figures furnished by Gaza’s Health Ministry. The official Health Ministry count as of Thursday, Aug. 15, was 40,005 Palestinians dead and 92,401 wounded. They do acknowledge that the Health Ministry figures do not differentiate between civilians and Hamas combatants, who do not wear formal uniform or carry separate identification.

Israel periodically provides estimates of how many Hamas fighters it believes have been killed. The most recent was Netanyahu’s estimate of 14,000.

Peter Berkowitz in RealClearPolitics discusses Israel’s reasonable war aims and strategies at https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/25/israels_reasonable_war_aims_and_strategy_150550.html.

He cites Azar Gat In “The Goals of the War in Gaza – and the Strategy for Achieving Them,” published by the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. He states:

“Hamas’ total elimination, however, is not attainable unless there is a legal way to expel, kill or imprison every Hamas-supporter in Gaza. Following Israel’s ground campaign, Gat argues, Hamas will continue to live in many Gazans’ hearts. It will persist as a guerilla force.”

Unfortunately, the romance and attraction of Hamas to Gazans is furthered by the embrace of propaganda by American university students, media and entertainers. It is a cultural problem and ultimately curing the sick culture of the Palestinians is the most effective step for peace.

But timing is crucial. We return to the question of a pre-emptive strike in an era of a nuclear Iran: As Louis Rene Beres explains at – https://www.jns.org/possible-advantages-of-a-preemptive-strike-on-iran/

“If Iran were an already nuclear enemy state, Israel’s demonstrated capacity for effective self-defence would be severely limited. However, because Iran is still pre-nuclear, the expected Iranian aggression could be a net gain for Israel. Ironically, this foreseeable Iran-created war could offer Israel an eleventh-hour opportunity to prevent enemy nuclearization and avoid a vastly more destructive war. In legal terms, this signifies an opportunity for “anticipatory self-defence.”

“From the standpoint of international law, pre-emption could represent a fully permissible strategic option… Israeli pre-emption against Iran would involve multiple and intersecting difficulties, these difficulties are unlikely to apply during an already ongoing conventional war.”

“Even if Iran were not in a condition of self-declared belligerency with the Jewish state, an Israeli pre-emptive action could still be lawful. Israel, in the fashion of every state under international law, is entitled to existential self-defense. Today, in an age of uniquely destructive weaponry, such law does not obligate Israel or any other state to expose its citizens to increasingly plausible extermination. When hostilities are already underway, Israel’s legal right to attack selected Iranian hard targets would be unassailable. Such hostilities would include surrogate or proxy attacks on Israeli noncombatants by jihadist terror groups.”

“While Israel’s active defenses have previously proven effective against Iranian missile and drone attacks, these defenses against nuclear-armed missiles would have to meet much higher standards…However counter-intuitive, therefore, impending Iranian aggressions could offer Israel a life-saving eleventh-hour opportunity to avoid later pre-emptions against an already nuclear enemy.”

Beres also advocates replacing Jerusalem’s traditional posture of “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” with a posture of “selective nuclear disclosure.” He argues that Tehran should “never be allowed to believe that Israel’s ‘bomb in the basement’ is merely for show.”

All countries must be educated to understand that Israeli self-defence through pre-emption may involve a discussion of Dresdenization, whether they like it or not.

Howard Rotberg is the author of the novel The Second Catastrophe, about Israel during the Second Intifada, and several books on ideologies, culture and values, including Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed and The Ideological Path to Submission.. and what we can do about it. . His latest book is Second Generation Radical: The World Through One Man’s Second Generation Lens. See www.howardrotberg.com. He has written over 50 essays for INN.