Ever since Israel started its military strikes in Gaza a week ago to put downthe acts of terrorism of the Hamas, there have been demands from sections ofanalysts and the general public in our country that India should emulate Israeland retaliate in a similar manner against Pakistan for its complicity in theterrorist attack by the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Pakistani terrorist organisation,in Mumbai from November 26 to 29,2008.
Nobody can question Israel's exercise of its right of self-defence to protectthe lives and property of its citizens from rocket attacks from Gaza by theHamas for weeks and months now. As the Deputy Permanent Representative of the USto the United Nations said in a press interview after the US had refused to joinin the condemnation of Israel's action by the UN Security Council: "Israel,like all other members of the UN, has the right of self-defence. This right isnot negotiable."
Like Israel and other members of the UN, India too has the right of self-defenceagainst acts of terrorism emanating from Pakistani territory and sponsored bythe State of Pakistan and has the right to retaliate against Pakistan and theduty to do so to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
The question is not whether we should retaliate. We should if we want Pakistanand the horde of terrorists nursed by it to take us seriously. The question iswhether a direct military strike will be the wise and appropriate way ofretaliating against Pakistan or should we do it through political and diplomaticmeasures, followed by deniable covert actions if those measures do not makePakistan change its ways.
For many years, Israel has been the victim of acts of terrorism by organisationssuch as the Hamas and the Hizbollah sponsored mainly by Syria and Iran. Itsretaliation has been directed against these terrorist organisations and notagainst their State-sponsors. After the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the YomKippur war of 1973 Israel has indulged in military strikes in the territory of asovereign state and a member of the UN only on two occasions--against the Osiraknuclear reactor under construction in Iraq in the early 1980s and against theHizbollah's infrastructure in the Lebanese territory in 2006. In the past,Israeli armed forces had operated in Lebanese territory on other occasions too.
Its action against Osirak in Iraq was a success, but its action in the Lebanonin 2006 against the Hizbollah was not. Despite its concerns over the nuclearsites in Iran for the production of enriched uranium, Israel has till nowavoided any military strikes on these sites despite public pressure fromsections of the Israeli people to do so. It did launch an attack on a suspectednuclear site in Syria last year, but as a deniable covert action and not as anadmitted military strike. It has also indulged in covert actions againstsuspected Hamas operatives based in Syria.
It is able to indulge in openly admitted military strikes against the Hamas inGaza because Gaza is not part of any sovereign State. In the past, Israel'sretaliatory military strikes have been against terrorist organisations posing athreat to Israeli citizens and property and not against the States sponsoringthem. Its actions against States sponsoring terrorism have been in the form ofcovert actions and not direct military strikes.
Practically all States facing the problem of terrorism have a covert actioncapability because it gives you a third option if political and diplomaticmeasures fail. If you don't have this capability, the only option you have ifpolitical and diplomatic actions fail is a military retaliation, which could bemessy when used against a next door neighbour. If you don't use military strikesand if you don't have a covert action capability, the state-sponsor and theterrorists sponsored by it develop a contempt for you.
The US has bombed Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation for their perceivedanti-US acts, but it never does it against Cuba, its next door neighbour. It hasdeclared Cuba a state-sponsor of terrorism and constantly keeps trying toundermine Cuba's political stability and economy, but avoids direct militaryaction against it despite its being a super power because it knows it could bemessy.
It is hoped the Government draws the right lessons from its dilemma after Mumbaiand tries to revive quickly our covert action capability, which was discardedmore than a decade ago as an ill-conceived unilateral gesture to Pakistan.
Advertisement
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. ofIndia, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies,Chennai.
