Several recent articles discussing the IDF’s response to a future war with Lebanon may reflect a change in Israel’s National Security Concept.
Gadi Eisenkot calls for a “Dahiyah Doctrine” under which the IDF would use disproportionate force to cause as much damage as possible (like against the Beirut suburb of Dahiyah).
Eisenkot warns that “We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction.”
In the same vein, an INSS paper from Gabriel Siboni argues that “As soon as the conflict breaks out, the IDF will have to operate in a rapid, determined, powerful and disproportionate way against the enemy’s actions.”
Giora Eiland goes a step further arguing that Israel should target the Lebanese government and civilian infrastructure.
At the same time, both Yossi Kuperwasser and Zaki Shalom question the viability of these doctrines.
All of these ideas derive from Israel’s strategic inferiority as seen during the 2nd Lebanon war as well as the need to update Israel’s National Security Concept. However they fail to mention the importance of the Home Front as a central component of this concept.
I strongly agree with the Dahiyah Doctrine, and even with
the “step further” proposed by Giora Eilan.
Kind Regards
The Dahiya Doctrine doesn’t seem like a good idea at all. Apart from the legal/moral/political issues, it didn’t work last time in Lebanon. What, exactly, is impetus behind this ‘great’ idea?
I’m sorry to disagree with Bertram, because in a certain
way, it did work. I still remember how Lebanon’s President Siniora was crying in front of the cameras asking the UN to stop the Israeli Bombardment?.
Besides it is important to put it clear, that the Lebanon Government, like any other government should take responsibility for what is done from his territory!!
I totally disagree with the Dahiyah Doctrine. Israel will never learn he right way to get rid of Hisballah is to go to the source of the power:Syria and Iran. approx 60% of the Lebanese despise HA and their boss Syria and Iran, and have been asking the world for help to get rid of HA with no avail. Now if Israel destroys Lebanon and its gov 100% of the lebanese will be with HA..
To all of the above.
As a Lebanese citizen, I strongly agree with the idea of a strong and swift response to Any aggression launched by Hezballah.
However, what I disagree with is the casualty of this response. The IDF should target the Hizballah stronghold, and more than that they should target Sydria and Iran the only sponsors of this terrorist organisation.
I agree with Ester Weisz 100% “Lebanon Government, like any other government should take responsibility for what is done from his territory” This is absolutely true. Yet you need to consider that Syria has crippled the Lebanese government’s ability to secure its border and control armed entities such as Hizballah. If you look closely, the majority in Lebanon are oppsed to Hizballah and advocate freedom and democracy.
So when you are setting out your Dahiya Doctrine, you should respond with disproportionate force but only where it will efective…. I.e: Syria, the bankroller, weapons supplier, political ally and power broker in Lebanon.
(Also note that Israel is in direct/Indirect peace talks with Syria, so go figure!) THings are always black and white are they?