Qassem Soleimani’s resume is full of violence and terror; we are not here to dispute this. However, as educators and lay leaders, the assassination of Soleimani brings to light many critical questions:
- Are targeted killings legally justified and/or moral?
- Are assassinations of nefarious leaders effective in quelling violence?
- Should we distinguish between the assassinations of leaders from sovereign nations vs. leaders of terrorist groups — like the killing of Isis leader Al-Baghdadi or Osama Bin Laden — or not?
- How does the assassination of Soleimani impact Israel?
- How did the Israeli press and Israeli leaders react to Soleimani’s demise?
A good question is often one that has texture and various layers, but without obvious answers. Good questions lead to deep thought and reflection. Our goal is to pose big questions and help unpack them for you.
Before you read further, click here to join me and Amanda Berman, the head of Zioness, on Wednesday at 10:00 am PST, 1:00 pm EST, 8:00 PM IST, as we discuss the challenges many Jews face on campus and what can be done about them.
And, check out our newest video on the Druze community in Israel.
As always, please send me your thoughts, comments, feedback and ideas!
U.S. President Donald Trump issued an order to assassinate Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who had been involved in terror against Americans and others for many years, “making him one of Israel and the US’s most sought-after targets.” Recent reports confirmed that Israeli intel helped confirm the details of Soleimani’s whereabouts. In response, Iran threatened American bases in the Middle East as well as Tel Aviv, and attacked U.S. military bases in Iraq, with no casualties being reported. Trump then addressed the nation and announced that further economic sanctions would be placed on Iran.
On the heels of these events, Iran admitted to accidentally shooting down a Ukranian passenger jet (after days of denying this), killing 176 people. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani issued an apology: “The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake. My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families.” But, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif still pointed a finger at the U.S.: “Human error at a time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster.”
Why Does This Matter?
- Israeli security – While Soleimani’s killing was carried out by the U.S., it’s no secret that what happens between the U.S. and Iran impacts Israel, too. Israel has been included in Iran’s response threats, vowing to turn Tel Aviv and Haifa “to dust” were the U.S. to further attack Iranian targets, and the world has been watching to see if Israel will get involved. Israeli security officials say to rest assured that an Iranian attack on Israel is unlikely, but why is Israel so caught up in this episode that’s seemingly between the U.S. and Iran? See below for more about this.
Iran, while geographically closer to Israel than the U.S., isn’t exactly in Israel’s backyard. But it does have a foothold in Israel’s neighboring territories: Lebanon, through Hezbollah, and Gaza, through Hamas. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that has operated in Lebanon as an Iranian proxy since 1982; it opposes the West and seeks Israel’s ultimate demise. Soleimani reportedly played a commanding role in the 2006 Second Lebanon War between Israel and Hezbollah. The group’s leader, Hassan Nassrallah, has vowed revenge on America for Soleimani’s death (Israel was surprisingly left out for now, but it’s hard to imagine it will be left out of the fray for long). Hamas, on the other hand, is “caught between Gaza calm and Iranian support,” according to a Haaretz analysis. Hamas (and Jihadist Islam) receives tremendous funding from Iran, and needs to incur its favor, but is dependent on Egypt as well, with whom it is currently in talks which aim at reaching a long-term quiet in the strip. Hamas, therefore finds itself in a tight spot.
- Targeted killing (or, according to some, liquidation) – This attack raised the question of what international law allows in this arena. The U.S. government maintains that there is a “valid and ongoing non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between the United States, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and associate forces, which consequently permits the USG to engage in at-will targeting of enemy belligerents.” It also holds that targeted killing is acceptable for self-defense. Arguments have been made against both of these claims, making the method of targeted assassinations a contested issue.
In Israel’s case, intelligence forces have often relied on the method of targeted killings, essentially using military intelligence to keep tabs on terrorists and periodically eliminate them. Ronen Bergman, in his colossal Rise and Kill First, weighs the pros and cons of this method, which are not straightforward (pro: hitting the exact person necessary for self-defense, con: emboldening more radical replacements). He explains about Israel: “Because of Israel’s tiny dimensions, the attempts by the Arab states to destroy it even before it was established, their continued threats to do so, and the perpetual menace of Arab terrorism, the country evolved a highly effective military and arguably the best intelligence community in the world. They, in turn, have developed the most robust, streamlined assassination machine in history.” Meir Dagan, former head of the Mossad, explains a different aspect: “Assassinations have an effect on morale, as well as a practical effect.” He cites important figures like Napoleon, Roosevelt and Churchill, and then concludes: “there’s a difference between a replacement with guts and some lifeless character.”
- The Israel-U.S.-Iran Relationship – Israel and the U.S. are close allies, and share Iran as a common enemy. The U.S. and Iran have been engaged in a sort of “shadow war” since the 1980’s with the Iranian bombing of the U.S. embassy, or perhaps even the 1950’s, when the U.S. helped stage a coup to overthrow the prime minister and put the Shah in power, which eventually led to the 1979 Iranian revolution. After this revolution, Iran severed all diplomatic ties with Israel (which had been shaky yet existent until that point), and the relationship turned more hostile with the First Gulf War in 1990. Today, Iran recognizes the close ties between Israel and the U.S. At rallies, extremists chant “death to America” and “death to Israel” and burn both countries’ flags. Israel and the U.S. work closely with one another and share intel to prevent Iranian terrorism and nuclear power. So, when the U.S. attacks Iran in an instance such as this, Iran includes Israel, the “little Satan”, (the U.S. is the “great Satan”) in its revenge threats, as Israel is a closer by, smaller, target than the U.S.
Diversity of Perspectives Within Israel
After the assassination, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement in support of the U.S.’s actions: “President Trump deserves all the credit for acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively.” Some have argued that Netanyahu is distancing himself from the event, and avoiding getting Israel involved in this story. Nonetheless, he issued a strong statement to Iran: “We’re standing steadfast against those who seek our lives. We’re standing with determination and with force. Whoever tries to attack us will receive a crushing blow in return.”
Head of Israel’s center-left Kahol Lavan party, Benny Gantz, issued a similarly approving statement: “I applaud President Donald Trump for his decision to assassinate Qassem Soleimani and for his bold leadership at large. This is the appropriate response to anyone responsible for the murder of countless innocent people and for undermining global stability.”
On the ground, Israelis are feeling resilient. The Times of Israel reported that Tel Aviv residents are “not afraid” of Iran’s threats toward Israel. The Israel Democracy Institute released a poll that found that the majority of Israelis believe that Israel is prepared for war. And, although Trump’s international approval ratings are generally quite low, 71% of Israelis support him.
While most in Israel have hailed the U.S.’s move, Haaretz reporter Chemi Shalev calls it naive. He writes:, “in the collective memory of Israel, the link between cause and effect has been severed. Targeted assassinations… are deemed, almost by definition, not only as eminently justified but as uniquely effective, no matter what.” He recalls past targeted killings that brought more harm than good, such as in 1996 when Israel killed the Hamas engineer of the suicide vest, Yahya Ayyash, which resulted in four suicide bombings that killed 59 Israelis.
- Why do you think the leaders of Israel’s two largest political parties, Likud and Kachol Lavan, showed consensus in their responses to this threat, when they’ve spent the last year bickering and disagreeing on many other issues, from forming a government to Netanyahu’s immunity bid?
- In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Israel made a concerted effort to distance itself from this event rather than get involved or be associated with it. Why do you think Israel chose to distance itself if Israel and America are close allies?
- In response to Soleimani’s assassination, an Iranian official threatened to turn Tel Aviv and Haifa “to dust.” How does it make you feel when you hear Israeli cities threatened to be turned “to dust”? Does it bother you? What feelings come to mind?
- One of the primary objectives of the American assassination of General Soleimani was to re-establish deterrence with Iran after a year of various attacks on American targets by Iran that went unanswered by the United States. Do you think this response is an effective way of creating deterrence against Iran or do you think it will only inflame the situation further?
- “Meir Dagan, former head of the Mossad, argues that neutralizing a few major figures is often the more ethical choice because it can prevent the loss of lives of countless soldiers and civilians” (Rise and Kill First). What do you make of this argument? Does it outweigh the potential risks of targeted killing? List three reasons for, and three reasons against, targeted killing.
Practical Classroom Tips
- Play “spectrum” with your students. Designate one side of the room as agree and the other side as disagree. Have them stand along the spectrum where they most identify based on the following statements:
- If a country acts in a terrorist way (intentionally attacking innocent civilians for political motives), their leader deserves to be treated as a terrorist rather than as a leader of a sovereign nation
- Eliminating the leader of a terrorist group is the most efficient way of stopping the group
- Targeted killings of terrorists are an efficient method of curbing terrorism
After moving to where they most agree, students should discuss with the other students there why they chose that area and then open the conversation to the whole group to explain their stances. Students may change where they stand based on the conversation.
In Other News…
- Israel is drenched! Torrential downpours over the last several weeks are breaking records left and right as the Sea of Galilee has risen by 23 centimeters (9 inches) this winter. Tragically, seven people have been killed in various accidents due to the rain.
- The Israeli debate team has won the World Universities Debate Championship for the third time, under the English as an Additional Language category.
- The “Christian version of Birthright” known as Passages, celebrated its fifth anniversary in Jerusalem this week with over 500 participants. The program plans to bring 10,000 Christian college students to Israel by the end of 2020.
- Israel is planning to return two Syrian prisoners as a goodwill gesture after Syria returned the body of Israeli soldier Zachary Baumel last year.