Via the weekly standard [rquoter]It's been more than ten years since Bill Clinton order strikes against the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in response to the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Then the United States was acting on information that tied Sudan to both al Qaeda, which was said to be using the facility to manufacture chemical weapons, and Iraq (which was believed to have provided funding and expertise to the project). Now the Israelis are reported to have bombed a weapons convoy traveling from Sudan toward the Egyptian border with Gaza. The attack happened in January, and the weapons allegedly originated in Iran. But it's hard to imagine that the Israelis would have gone to such trouble over a few crates of arms and ammunition. Haaretz speculates that the trucks may have been carrying long-rang Fajr rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv, and that the secondary goal of the raid was to send a message to the Iranians: Israel can strike at long distances and with precise intelligence. But the operation also highlights the still festering problems of Sudan. In the last decade the Sudanese have collaborated with terrorist groups like Hamas and al Qaeda and with terror supporting states like Iran and pre-war Iraq, all while waging a genocide against its own citizens in Darfur. Likewise the statements from the Sudanese government are indistinguishable from the statements made by al Qaeda and its ilk. The New York Times quotes a Sudanese government spokesman pushing back against reports that it was the Israelis, and not U.S. jets, that carried out the raid: “We don’t differentiate between the U.S. and Israel. They are all one.” If the weapons were bound for Gaza, the Israelis were well within their rights to destroy them. If the weapons were bound for Darfur or somewhere else, then the strike was a mitzvah. Either way, if this administration is serious about reining in Khartoum, it's obviously going to take a lot more than the appointment of Scott Gration as special envoy to Sudan.[/rquoter]
Hooraaaaaay! Now that is what good intelligence work is all about. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right?
Although I certainly agree with a strong and intelligent proactive response, i can't help but think about what this will do to anger the radicals. Israel acting outside of their boundaries greatly resembles American foreign policy
Not that I care much for the government of Israel, but this was a good move if the weapons were going to cause trouble down the line. But if they weren't, then it will cause them more trouble in the future. The problem with these things is that no evidence remains as far as I know.
I wouldn't worry about angering radicals, they stay pretty angry on their own. Shipping arms to terrorists is evidence of that.
I think something like this is a no-brainer for Israel. This is sort of like using a CIA drone to bomb a target in Yemen and have plausible deniability when the finger is pointed at them. It is not like any of those weak countries are going to pick a fight with Israel over a targeted bombing of an arms shipment. It is not a really a big deal in the grand realm of things. Now if this was Iran, then scratch everything I just said. I would NOT give Iran the motive to retaliate by doing something like this on their territory. If it was outside their territory (like the U.S. shutting down an Iranian drone over Iraqi territory) then it is fair game. I know it is a thin line, but little subtleties like this make all the difference. Israel definitely has to be smart about it, and so does the U.S.
Can you imagine what Israel's response would be like if Hamas were to acquire rocket capabilities that would enable them to easily reach Tel Aviv? That IS the red line, Tel Aviv is the NYC of Israel. They cannot possibly take that risk. If that were to ever happen, Israel would have no choice but to permanently reoccupy Gaza and have an even heavier hand in crushing Hamas and all the militants. It would be a game changer in a really, really bad way. It would be a nightmare scenario not just for Israelis, but mainly Palestinians. Israel pushed back against the wall is not a good scenario for anyone in the region, we already know Israel tends to react in the extreme at times. Deterrence is not good enough when you are Israel, complete elimination of the threat is often the only option. This was absolutely unequivocally the right move. The consequences would be much much worse for all involved. As is, the consequences will amount to nothing more than a rhetorical whiplash from an already antagonistic Sudanese government, which really has no friends in the region.
As opposed to the un-angry radicals right now? I think this type of directed, targetted response is better & more effective than some of the other stuff Israel does.
I agree with you that, if there were long-range weapons, Israel did what anyone in its position would/should do. I don't particularly care though if Israel calls a piece of land Tel Aviv and densely populates it. Nor do I care if Israel is the overreacting country - everyone should be treated equally, regardless of whether they have a bad temper. I just think that as many humans should be saved as possible. If this saved more people than it killed, then I guess there was no option. The ideal situation, ofcourse, would be to have zero deaths. Complete anhilation of the opposition is an interesting thought you mentioned. Do you mind discussing a couple of things with me? 1) Has there ever been a country which required complete anhilation of the "opposition" to exist? I find it fairly unique, historically speaking. Don't you find this odd and difficult to explain? 2) Do you think that if you captured the entire Hamas and Fatah roster, put them in a room, and killed them with poison gas that the opposition would cease to exist? Who is the opposition exactly in this scenario? Is it just Hamas and/or Fatah?
What I meant to say was that it would just give them another reason. The trend seems to follow a retaliatory pattern, with the latter being worse/more devastating than the former.
