Middle East Strategy at Harvard

From Philip Carl Salzman

Let us imagine (in the style of political philosophers) that a small country, for illustration let’s say Paraguay, is deemed by its neighbors to be a usurper and illegitimate. Further, that on numerous occasions, Uruguay to the southeast, Bolivia to the southwest, and Chile to the far west, mount military campaigns against Paraguay in order to eliminate it and divide its resources among themselves. It is notable, on the occasion of these invasions, that the great powers, Brazil and Argentina, stand neutral and strictly committed to non-interference.

Plucky Paraguay, however, whether out of devotion or desperation or both, repeatedly overcomes the odds, blocking the invading Uruguay, Bolivia, and Chile, and turning the tide toward defeating their aggressors. At this point in each conflict, however, the neutral and strictly non-interfering great powers decide to make an exception in order to stop Paraguay from defeating its enemies and from imposing any penalties on them for their aggression. Any temporary gains that Paraguay makes must be rolled back, say the great powers, and everything returned to the aggressors, otherwise the results would not be “proportionate.”

As the aggressors have been repeatedly blocked by plucky Paraguay, they have thrown up irregular guerrilla armies, call them Ama and Ezbolo, to harass and undermine the civilian population of Paraguay. Paraguay is strong enough to strike and eliminate them, but the menacing great powers say Paraguay may not, that actually stopping the attacks would be “disproportionate.”

In short, the rules of war, as defined by the great powers, are that the aggressors may invade as they like, but they may never lose anything for having done so, and that guerrilla armies may attack freely, and may not be eliminated. In short, military aggression is cost-free; while defense is disproportionate and disallowed. This formula guarantees for the great powers an endless drama to observe and amuse themselves. And, of course, it encourages aggression, one of the few remaining cost-free entertainments.

My transparent little conceit obviously refers, not to South America, but to the Arab-Israel conflict, in which the Arabs, holding the vastness of the Middle East and North Africa—incidentally all conquered by the sword—have vehemently rejected the existence of minuscule Israel and repeatedly invaded and tried to eliminate her. On each occasion, when Israel, at great cost, has blocked the invasion and is in a position to conquer its foes, and to make them pay a serious price for their aggression, she has been stopped by the “great powers” of Europe and America.

Most recently, as her civilians (both in the north and in the south) have suffered from a daily barrage of rockets, Israeli counter measures are insistently denounced as “disproportionate.” Imagine, if you will, a daily barrage of rockets from Belgium into France, and France’s response; or from Mexico into Texas, and America’s response; or from Paraguay into Brazil, and Brazil’s response.

It appears that there are special rules of war that apply to Israel alone: aggression against Israel is judgement free and cost free, while Israeli defense is deemed immoral and forbidden.