Israeli reserve Brigadier General Gabriel Siboni called for striking Lebanon’s infrastructure in case of a new war. In an article published on the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies’ internet site, Siboni said that the “current predicament facing Israel involves two major challenges. The first is how to prevent being dragged into an ongoing dynamic of attrition on the northern border similar to what in recent years developed along the border with the Gaza Strip. The second is determining the IDF’s response to a large scale conflict both in the north and in the Gaza Strip.” Siboni analyzed that both challenges can be overcome by adopting the principle of a “disproportionate strike against the enemy’s weak points as a primary war effort, and operations to disable the enemy’s missile launching capabilities as a secondary war effort.”
PUNISHMENT IS TO DESTROY LITERALLY EVERYTHING
The Israeli Brigadier General writes that with an outbreak of hostilities, “the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy’s actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes.
The strike must be carried out as quickly as possible, and must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher. Punishment must be aimed at decision makers and the power elite. In Syria, punishment should clearly be aimed at the Syrian military, the Syrian regime, and the Syrian state structure. In Lebanon, attacks should both aim at Hezbollah’s military capabilities and should target economic interests and the centers of civilian power that support the organization. Moreover, the closer the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, the more the elements of the Lebanese state infrastructure should be targeted.”
Siboni believes that such a response will create a lasting memory among Syrian and Lebanese decision makers, “thereby increasing Israeli deterrence and reducing the likelihood of hostilities against Israel for an extended period. At the same time, it will force Syria, Hezbollah, and Lebanon to commit to lengthy and resource-intensive reconstruction programs.”
RESPONSE SHOULD BE DISPROPORTIONATE
He stressed Israel does not have to be dragged into a war of attrition with Hezbollah. “Israel’s test will be the intensity and quality of its response to incidents on the Lebanese border or terrorist attacks involving Hezbollah in the north or Hamas in the south. In such cases, Israel again will not be able to limit its response to actions whose severity is seemingly proportionate to an isolated incident. Rather, it will have to respond disproportionately in order to make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel will accept no attempt to disrupt the calm currently prevailing along its borders. Israel must be prepared for deterioration and escalation, as well as for a full scale confrontation. Such preparedness is obligatory in order to prevent long term attrition. The Israeli home front must be prepared to be fired upon, possibly with even heavy fire for an extended period, based on the understanding that the IDF is working to reduce the period of fighting to a minimum and to create an effective balance of deterrence.”
“By instilling proper expectations of the IDF response among the civilian population, Israel will be able to improve its readiness and the resilience of its citizens. Still, the IDF’s primary goal must nonetheless be to attain a ceasefire under conditions that will increase Israel’s long term deterrence, prevent a war of attrition, and leave the enemy floundering in expensive, long term processes of reconstruction,” Siboni concluded.
Gabriel Siboni joined the research team of the Institute for National Security Studies in early 2006.
He served as a fighter and commander in the Golani Brigade and completed his service as the brigade’s reconnaissance unit commander. Within the scope of his reserve service, he served as senior staff officer of the Golani Brigade, deputy commander of the logistics unit, and chief of staff of an armored division in the north.
In addition to his work at INSS, Siboni is also a consultant in a wide range of fields, including operational systems and military technology.
Commentary: I have bolded out the key word “disproportionate” in the article above because it is the single most important one in terms of the laws of war, international humanitarian law and international and customary law. Indeed, the concept of *proportionality* is the linchpin of all the legal instruments applicable in international conflicts. Basically, international law recognizes that conflicts will occur and that any nation has the right to self-defense. Likewise, international law accept the fact that modern warfare will always result in what is politely called ‘collateral damage’, i.e.: damage to non combattants and the civil society. However, international law clearly and unequivocally states that the response to an aggression and the means used to repel an agressor must be *proportional* to the military necessity. This means that two things are specifically considered as war crimes:
a) using excessive force
b) deliberately engaging non-military targets
History has shown that Israel, truly the world’s Ueber-terrorist, couldn’t care less about *any* laws, nevermind the laws of war and that its armed forces have always considered the commission of war crimes not only as a tactic, but in fact as a strategy to achieve its objectives. What is unique in the case of Siboni is the arrogant, blatant, openness with which such terrorist methods are advocated. This is hardly a reflection of some newly aquiered spirit of “glasnost” among the racist thugs who run the Israeli high command, rather it is a reflection of the degree of inpunity which the USA has granted its Israeli allies (or, better said, *bosses*).
We see yet again the proof of a basic postulate: racism and terrorism *always* go hand in hand. There is no such thing as a non-terrorist racist ideology or, even less so, a non-terrorist racist state. Israel will remain a terrorist state as long as it clings to its Zionist racist ideology and it would be foolish in the extreme to expect it to abide by any kind of law (international, human rights, etc.) under these circumstances.