The imbalance of military power has so far allowed Israel to operate uncontested against Hizbollah and Hamas. In the past, Israel has sought to bring about peace through its “land for peace” strategy, unilaterally disengaging from South Lebanon, Gaza, and parts of the West Bank. But recent events seem to demonstrate the futility of this approach. Israel has also sought to use escalation strategies, gradually ratcheting up the level of pain. Precise targeting of Hamas and Hizbollah leadership gave way to more indiscriminate artillery strikes on areas launching rockets. In turn, widespread air raids on “infrastructure” seem to echo “Sherman’s March” on Atlanta Georgia during the American civil war. Sherman sought to impress upon the South the cost of supporting secession through a burnt grass campaign. The destruction of so much accomplished in Lebanon in the past 15 years strongly suggests that the Israelis are pursuing a similar strategy to that of Sherman, demonstrating the cost of permitting Hamas and Hizbollah the freedom of movement they have enjoyed in these areas. Still, can these strategies ultimately lead to the elimination of these organisations’ ability to operate in Gaza and Lebanon?

Hamas and Hizbollah: “Fourth Generation Warfare”

Hamas and Hizbollah are pursuing distinct strategies in their strikes on Israel using irregular forces and weapons of mass disruption, rather than confront Israel’s conventional advantages. Fourth generation forces are described as focusing on asymmetric attacks, taking advantage of extensive local social networks to organize operations and move about rapidly and discreetly. A further distinctive feature of their modus operandi is the focus on media and information operations. The use of spokespersons to denounce “collateral damage” (even while inflicting it themselves), the use of hostages, both willing and unwilling, and the direct targeting of civilians all speak to a strategy aimed at the popular morale under pinning their opponent’s war effort, as well as engineering an external groundswell of opinion against continued operations. But as with the Israeli example above, one must ask what the end state is. Unguided rocket attacks, kidnapping soldiers, and suicide bombs in market places are hardly techniques that will ultimately throw the Israelis into the sea.

The End of the Post-Cold War Era

As much as the violence is fruitless, there realistically does not seem to be any alternative to it either. The fundamental goals of each are mutually exclusive. Two possible developments seem to be underway.

The first is the erosion of the liberal order that has underwritten international order since the end of the Second World War. The growing rational control of international issues by the forces of “governance” has extended even unto war itself in the form of the law of armed conflict which has turned modern operational planning into as much an affair for lawyers as any modern activity. However, if there ever was an event which tells us that the “Post Cold War” era is over, it is this. The hesitation of Western states to confront Israel is revealing. Throughout the 1990s, there was much speculation on what would succeed the Cold War order. There was speculation that a “New World Order” would emerge, an order of democratic states laying the foundation for an age of peace, an “End to History” as Francis Fukuyama put it. The calls for “peace dividends” have ceased, and the frustration of concerned groups to shame nations into action in Darfur show the shallowness of the commitment to “human security”. While European states may yet condemn Israel for its actions, their hesitation seems to indicate their recognition of the intractability of the present situation.