My co-blogger Judeopundit takes Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman to task for his argument that Israel hitting Imad Mughniyah was likely counterproductive in “Bracing for revenge.” In two sentences he neatly disposes of Mr. Bergman’s argument:
Obviously terrorist groups are capable of horrendous operations for reasons other than revenge. The consequences of not crossing “red lines” could be to allow a terror organization to build its capabilities and then take the initiative when it feels ready.
The Terror Wonk dealt with the question in Will Hezbollah retaliate? He lays out the information supporting the possibility and against he possibility of retaliation. While he feels that Israeli and Jewish organizations ought to exercise increased vigilance, he doesn’t (seem to) feel that revenge is automatic.
And there are indeed counterexamples to show that killing the right terror bosses will effectively reduce terror.
Last year, Elder of Ziyon noted that the Israeli killing of Sheikh Yassin and Dr. Rantisi had likely been a factor in the reduction of terror deaths Israel suffered in recent years. Also during the “Aqsa intifada” Israel hit a leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Afterwards, terror attempts by the group were marked by failure. (In one case the terrorist entered a store and showed of his explosive belt warning everyone in advance of the explosion.)
There seems to be plenty of evidence that when Israel kills a terror leader who is skilled in launching operations (recruiting, training and planning), it will see less terror rather than more.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
