The Psychological Asymmetry of Islamist Warfare
Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 17:31 by Irwin J. Mansdorf and Mordechai Kedar
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2008, pp. 37-44
From: http://www.meforum.org/article
U.S. military lawyers acknowledge that "civilians may not be used … to render an area immune from military operations… [or] to shield a defensive position, to hide military objectives, or to screen an attack. Neither may they be forced to leave their homes or shelters in order to disrupt the movement of an adversary."[1] Such restraint is not unique to the United States but also extends to Europe, Israel, and in the post-World War II era, many Asian countries as well. Increasingly, though, Israel's Arab foes and Islamist groups discount such constraints in order to seek psychological advantage against technologically superior foes. Western governments are challenged today by an enemy whose behavior is inspired by theological doctrines that not only disregard the Western concept of ethical combat but for whom the killing of civilians—on both sides of a conflict—also serves a vital purpose.
Policymakers and military officials often discuss asymmetrical warfare in the context of strategies weak states or terrorist groups adopt to confront stronger military powers. Israel, for example, enjoys advantages in manpower and technology over its terrorist adversaries, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. But the ideology of Islamism has created a paradoxical form of asymmetric advantage for terror groups and states: By rejecting the entire Western concept of the rules of war, Islamist groups turn the adherence of Western military powers to restrictions on battlefield conduct into not just a disadvantage, but one that can be relied upon in a conflict, whether confronting U.S. peacekeepers in Mogadishu, NATO units in southern Afghanistan, or Israeli soldiers in Gaza. Accentuating the danger, not only terror groups but also states practice the Islamist way of war. Countries such as Iran have implemented these doctrines on the battlefield. During the Iran-Iraq war, for example, Tehran demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice tens of thousands of its own children and men to confront an enemy, and during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, Iran's proxy militia launched rockets at Israel and fought from within civilian populations as part of a strategy that sought both to kill Israeli civilians and to ensure that any Israeli self-defense would kill Lebanese civilians.
A Different Type of Asymmetrical Warfare
Most analysts acknowledge that Israel enjoys military superiority over its Arab neighbors,[2] a status preserved in part by the U.S. commitment to Israel's qualitative military edge relative to the Arab states.[3] Many Arab commentators and academics use this asymmetry for propaganda. Pro-Palestinian polemicist Edward Said juxtaposed "Israeli power" and "Palestinian powerlessness."[4] Nabil Ramlawi, the permanent observer for Palestine to the United Nations in Geneva wrote in 2002 of an alleged massacre in which Israel used "tanks and armoured vehicles, under a barrage of heavy gunfire from Apache gunships," and further committed a "long list of massacres" and "war crimes, State-sponsored terrorism and systematic human rights violations against the Palestinian people."[5] But Israel's technological edge does not mean that it enjoys every advantage in its battles with terror groups: While Israel subscribes to traditional restrictions on its battlefield conduct, its Islamist and jihadi adversaries, who eschew international humanitarian law, enjoy an asymmetric advantage born of psychological impunity.
The Israeli military faces a serious dilemma because it adheres to a specific moral code. Despite Arab propaganda to the contrary, Israeli military planners respect human life.[6] Tel Aviv University philosophy professor Asa Kasher and current Israel Defense Forces (IDF) intelligence chief Amos Yadlin write that, even when dealing with terrorists, Israeli soldiers conduct operations "in a manner that strictly protects human life and dignity by minimizing all collateral damage to individuals not directly involved in acts or activities of terror."[7] When trying to oust terrorists from Jenin in April 2002, for example, Israeli commanders decided to pursue a house-to-house ground strategy rather than employ the kind of airpower that would keep Israeli soldiers out of danger but would heighten the risk of collateral civilian casualties.[8] This decision cost the lives, in one incident, of thirteen IDF soldiers in an ambush in the Hawashin district on April 9.[9]
The Israeli judiciary also provides a check on the military. Israeli courts regularly impose restrictions on military tactics, despite the "price paid by the limitations put on the army's actions."[10] Arab petitioners have a voice. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote that Israel's courts represent an "independent judiciary willing to stand up to its own government."[11] In 2004, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled for petitioner Fatma al-Aju against the Israeli military in a case that called for the IDF to take into consideration obligations towards civilians, such as allowing medical teams to enter combat areas, and other humanitarian needs when planning military operations.[12] The court also sided with Palestinian Arabs regarding the routing of Israel's security barrier.[13] Arab states have no such judicial independence nor are their leaderships subject to the rule of law.
Comparative prisoner treatment also highlights the discrepancy: The Israeli government provides access to and information about captured terrorists, opening itself to criticism of their treatment,[14] whereas neither Hamas nor Hezbollah even acknowledge whether captured Israelis are alive, let alone allow international monitors access to them.
