The Israeli strike in Syria: what to make of it
October 5, 2003

Tomorrow marks the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war, when, on the holiest of the Jewish calendar, as the entire nation was in prayer and fasting, the combined armies or Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack against Israel. Israel scrambled to fend them off, and then did so successfully, prevented from returning the favor to Damascus and Cairo only through Soviet intervention.
 
The Yom Kippur war was the third – third – blatant military attempt to exterminate Israel (1948, 1967, 1973). Since 1973, Israel’s free democratic society, highly-educated populace and determination in the face of endless threat have produced a powerful nation-state, one more than capable of defeating the combined Arab armies. Its technology is generations in advance of those of Syria.
 
But this very asymmetry between Israeli and Syrian militaries forced a Syrian change in strategy after 1973: instead of daring challenge Israel on the open battlefield, as war is expected to be fought, it began arming terrorist groups to bleed Israel on attacks against its civilians. This was, after all, the only way it could attack Israel, and since then it has funded, provided offices and training camps, assisted in materiel procurement and logistical support for these terrorist groups, of which there are nearly a dozen, but only two well-known ones: Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Syria, for the last thirty years, in their inability to confront Israel openly and directly, has been waging proxy war against Israel and it civilians.
 
Now, after the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister and the apparent end of the road map, it is clear that the Palestinian leadership is not yet ready to arrest its terrorists. As a result, yesterday a Palestinian female suicide bomber entered a restaurant owned by an Arab-Israeli family, in Haifa, the city the symbolizes Arab-Jewish coexistence, and ripped it apart with a fireball of rusty nails and razor-blades, mass-murdering at least eighteen, permanently disfiguring scores more. "A minute before I saw them smiling, laughing, and a second later I saw them lying on the ground in puddles of blood, in pieces,” one witness said. This was the 104th suicide bombing against Israel since September 2000.
 
Enough is enough. What we now have is a clear and principled move by Israel to raise the stakes. No longer will dictatorships like Syria and Iran be able to openly support terrorist groups bent of destroying Israeli life with impunity. The Israeli strike was retaliatory – against those and only those directly responsible for yesterday’s suicide bombings – but it is also an attempt at escalation, because the way it works now is not longer acceptable. 
 
And this is how it works: Syria and Iran can support terrorist groups, but then claim innocence when they act.  This is the Arafat formula: after every suicide bombing, he condemns it, though without lifting a finger against the known perpetrators. Arafat, Syria and Iran are responsible for terrorism, but create an apparent but false distance that leaves them free from censure. The equivalent, if Israel were to act this way, would be to form a secret group, call it the “Israeli Resistance Movement,” who Israel could dispatch to attack Palestinians, or attack Syrian targets, but then claim that is it had no knowledge of the group’s activities, nor responsibility for them, and simply condemn that unfortunate attacks. Oh, and then call the Syrian or Palestinian response “aggression.”
 
Anyone who listened to the Syrian ambassador’s speech, made minutes ago, heard repeated over and over the word “aggression.” But the Israeli strike was the opposite of aggression; it was self-defense, absolutely legal under Article 51 of the United Nations charter. 
 
It is Syria, not Israel, which is in violation of the United Nations charter. An interesting but oft-ignored fact is that every single resolution of the Security Council that pertains to the Arab-Israeli conflict – 181, 242, 338, among them – were adopted under Chapter Six, which concerns the peaceful resolution of conflict, and essentially non-binding recommendations. Chapter Seven is reserved for the most egregious violations of peace and acts of aggression – invoked only a handful on times in the UN’s history (and a number of them against Saddam). They require enforcement by the UN, by force if necessary.
 
The anti-terrorism Resolution 1373, passed after September 11th, was in fact adopted under Chapter Seven, stating that all states must, “Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,” as well as “Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens.” Syria is, and has been for years, in clear violation of this Chapter Seven UN Security Council resolution. Of course, this will hardly be brought up in the General Assembly, for Syria has 21 other Arab nations, fifty or so majority-Muslim countries, and various Communist countries, who will all circle the wagons around Syria, protecting it for any UN action.
 
But the Resolution 1373, as well as countless others, and the very logic of war and peace itself, permit Israel to act in self-defense, by attacking the base where terrorists train and organize murderous assaults on Israeli civilians. Israel was right – legally and morally – to strike the Islamic Jihad base. It should be made clear to Syria, Iran and other tyrannical state sponsors of terrorism that Israel will fight back, and their continued proxy war will come with serious consequences. 
 
"Israel Attacks What It Calls a Terrorist Camp in Syria," Greg Myre, The New York Times, October 5, 2003.