Revenge and Insecurity, or "Kill Arik, Vol. 2"

(originally published 3/04?)

Apart from the construction of Sharon’s Wall, the element of historic importance for the future in today’s Israeli-Palestinian impasse is Israel’s extraordinary public adoption of assassination as a public policy.

As a covert tactic, of course, it is older than prostitution, but few governments in modern times have embraced the concept of extra-judicial revenge beyond their borders so openly, fearlessly and shamelessly. Especially ones that are democratically elected, have a sure grip on their domestic power, and are widely recognized. The reason for the reticence of most sovereign states’ governments about their dirty deeds, it is clear, is pragmatic: it’s a slippery slope that is dangerous for the governmental leaders themselves. To give an analogous historical example, the one thing all kings of the modern era opposed was regicide: It was bad for the whole regal industry.

I don’t want to get into Kennedy assassination-speculation here, but I will acknowledge the theory that Oswald was somehow put up to it by Castro, in revenge for (covert) assassination attempts against him credited to the CIA. You see how the game normally works from this example: the target is hit, or not, a slightly deranged hitman is taken down, but no one is the wiser, and the trail is cold well before it reaches the citadels of national power.

US policy has been, and remains, not to officially sponsor assassination. OK, so sometimes when apprehending a suspect, particularly outside the country, the evildoer might get offed, particularly if he/she resists arrest. (Personally, I could see the point of making an exception, now and then, as long as we recognize it’s revenge we’re after and the provocation is particularly extreme: I wouldn’t mind it so much if we announced that, as a matter of policy, when we pin down Osama, we’re going to bring in the flamethrowers and throw a barbecue. But no, it’s better not to go there, and it’s not really necessary under those circumstances, anyway.) We tried the “decapitation” strike against Saddam—with a complicated rationale that it wasn’t just an assassination attempt (?)—but when we actually got our paws on him in his rathole, we didn’t just slake our bloodlust.

Not that we’re really better than Dirty Harry; it’s more the admission of impotence in the policy of overt assassination—we don’t have confidence in our ability to bring ‘em to justice, so let’s just make sure they get theirs while we have the chance. That last bit seems to be the Israeli rationale. The hits on Hamas’ leaders are frankly called “retaliation”—a/k/a revenge—certainly not much point in terms of somehow intimidating or silencing the Palestinian intifada.

As with Sharon’s Wall, the Israeli leadership is working from the principle of “fait accompli”: they do it because they can. The best they could hope for, I’d argue, is to decimate the terrorists’ leadership. The isolated cells which would remain would continue to try acts of terror, but somehow by being decentralized Hamas’ terror campaign would be less effective.

Which raises the question, effective at what? Both the Palestinian terrorists’ suicide attacks, and the retaliations from Israel, strike me as being non-strategic. I'm reminded of Mafia Gangland war, Hatfield and McCoy, or the Arkansas feud so brilliantly satirized by Mark Twain in Huckleberry Finn—I’d call both sides atavistic, mindless, and bloody-minded. Unless, of course, Israel’s Cabinet has laid down a form of challenge, which Hamas hasn’t quite picked up. “Come and get us, if you can!”

Well, what do you say, unnamed Hamas leader (at least a little sense there in remaining anonymous)? Can you beat the #1 security infrastructure in the world? The challenge to you: don’t waste another martyr, if not for the cause of “justified” direct revenge against Sharon and/or the Cabinet members who’ve authorized your leaders’ slayings. The world will not challenge your right to revenge, if you can do it. I daresay the news reporting industry will gain plenty of grist for the mill in that case. What good does it do to waste more innocents? Not to mention the religious unacceptability...

Speaking of misguided revenge, what other explanation is there for America invading Iraq, really? (Our bad?-damn!)....

In all seriousness, though, in the case of the Israeli assassination campaign, I think our country's public stance is appropriate: we understand your emotional impulses, but try to consider the consequences of your actions. This counsel is especially relevant in the case of easily-targeted possible objective Arafat (who, in his--what, "murderous lust?"--Sharon wants to include on the hit list he's submitted; you know, the one he prepared in order to demonstrate the quality of his restraint. To me, this one looks awfully like a mercy killing, or like executing Saddam in his rathole).

I, for one, am suspicious of our government's private communications to the Israeli leadership and wondering what quid of ours may be pro quo. (That is, after all, the usual game.) And would I support offering it for that.

And with this guy on our side, with his track record, and with the guy on the other side, and his track record, I just say, "No. No deal."