The myth of strategic defiance in the aftermath of the Israeli retaliation to Hamas’s attacks of October 7 was exposed when no Arab-Muslim state came into the forefront to salvage the beleaguered Palestinian population of Gaza and West Bank. Strategic defiance against the Israeli occupation and attacks was periodically asserted by the so-called allies of Hamas but even after 9,000 Palestinian casualties in the ongoing conflict, Israel is adamant that it will wiping out what it calls terrorist hideouts in the shape of tunnels.
What is the myth of strategic defiance policy of Iran, Turkey and some Arab countries like Qatar, Lebanon and Syria in resisting Israel’s policy of genocide against Palestinians and why has that policy failed to render positive results? Why did strategic defiance on the part of Hamas against Israel cause colossal physical and material losses of Palestinians holed up in besieged Gaza Strip? Turkish President Tayyip Erdogen who has, since October 7, been condemning Israel has not taken the step to break off his country’s relations with the Jewish state. as recalling his ambassador is not enough.
Strategic defiance means an approach to resist the enemy in a calculated and an intelligent manner both in the battlefield and at the diplomatic front so as to pre-empt further damage caused by the adversary.
The term ‘strategic defiance’ got popular when General Mirza Aslam Beg, Pakistan’s former army chief, in his address before senior military officers opposed the US-led attack on Iraq, called the Gulf War, in January 1991. At that time, the US had raised half a million-strong multinational force including those from Arab-Muslim countries to force Iraq to end its military occupation over Kuwait. When Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the UN Security Council resolution of November 1990 which called for the use of military force in case of Iraq’s failure to withdraw from Kuwait by January 17, 1991, the US attack led to the outbreak of Gulf War. General Beg, as Pakistan Army chief, refused to be part of that force and called for ‘strategic defiance’ against the US-led invasion of Iraq.
Ironically, the pro-American establishment of Pakistan prevailed over COAS and he had to backtrack on his anti-American rhetoric. In prevailing circumstances when Israel is using its colossal force to liquidate Hamas, the myth of strategic defiance is exposed. It is like what the then Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, in January 1991 in order to deter the US had threatened to use ‘super gun’ capable of attacking New York. The strategic defiance of the first Taliban regime against the US-led attack on Afghanistan in October 6, 2001 also failed particularly when Osama bin Laden had threatened the use of what he called nuclear weapons.
One can analyse the myth of strategic defiance on the part of Arab countries against Israel in three phases.
The first phase was from 1948-1967 when the neighbours of Israel particularly Egypt, Syria and Jordan called for the destruction of Israel and declared war against that nascent Jewish state in 1948. Other Arab countries like Iraq also joined but the myth of strategic defiance of the creation of Israel failed and they miserably lost their war against the Jewish state. In 1964, Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed under the leadership of Yasser Arafat and its strategic defiance called for the destruction of Israel but miserably failed in its objective because not only did Israel survive the Arab onslaught, it also emerged as a major threat to its neighbours.
The second phase of strategic defiance on the part of Arab states was from 1967-1973 when after losing the June 1967 War to Israel, they came to know of their inability to challenge the Jewish state. The myth of Arab strategic defiance to the existence of Israel was further exposed when the Jewish state occupied Sinai desert, Gaza, West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. The core of Arab/PLO strategic defiance which called for the destruction of Israel collapsed when Egypt and Syria in their attack over Israel in October 1973 failed to regain their territories of Sinai and Golan Heights. A fatal blow to Arab strategic defiance of Israel occurred when Egypt, the strongest frontline state under the then President Anwar El-Sadat, decided to mend fences with Israel by signing the Camp David accords of 1978 and signing the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. The neutralisation of Egypt by abandoning the policy of strategic defiance not only weakened the Palestinian cause but also strengthened the position of Israel.
The fragility of strategic defiance of PLO and Arab states took a final shape in the third phase when in September 1993, PLO and Israel granted mutual recognition to each other followed by Jordan in 1994. Following the marginalisation of the Palestinian cause and the annexation of Golan Heights and East Jerusalem by Israel, PLO realised that its 1964 charter calling for the destruction of Israel will not work anymore and it needs to be realistic in its policy of strategic defiance. Four factors mattered in weakening the policy of strategic defiance against Israel. First, the Camp David accords of 1978 and Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. Second, the failure of international community to prevail over Israel over its policy of Arab occupied territories. Third, formation of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank which transformed the demographic complexion threatening Palestinian majority. Fourth, the division within the Palestinian struggle because of the rift between Hamas and PLO and its strategic advantage to Israel.
All the three phases of strategic defiance on the part of Arab states against Israel reflected initial offensive and then fragility of assertive response against the occupation of Arab territories and sustained violence against Palestinians. Instead of defiance, majority of Arab and Muslim states tend to pursue a policy of appeasement and compromise vis-à-vis Israel.
Incompetence, hypocrisy and indifference of Arab-Muslim states in confronting Israel over its brutal suppression of Palestinian community in Gaza led to the final collapse of strategic defiance. One cannot expect Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, the neighbours of Israel, to take firm measures against the Jewish state and its principal backer, Washington; but Iran and Turkey, the two principal supporters of Hamas, should have done something tangible to salvage the beleaguered Palestinian community. As Muslim world’s only nuclear state, Pakistan also failed to render practical support to the Palestinians of Gaza and West Bank. In its essence, strategic defiance in the context of Palestine is a myth and not a reality and cannot be pursued while living in comfort zones because it requires boldness, courage and sacrifice.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 7th, 2023.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
Myth and reality of strategic defiance
53
1
07.11.2023
The myth of strategic defiance in the aftermath of the Israeli retaliation to Hamas’s attacks of October 7 was exposed when no Arab-Muslim state came into the forefront to salvage the beleaguered Palestinian population of Gaza and West Bank. Strategic defiance against the Israeli occupation and attacks was periodically asserted by the so-called allies of Hamas but even after 9,000 Palestinian casualties in the ongoing conflict, Israel is adamant that it will wiping out what it calls terrorist hideouts in the shape of tunnels.
What is the myth of strategic defiance policy of Iran, Turkey and some Arab countries like Qatar, Lebanon and Syria in resisting Israel’s policy of genocide against Palestinians and why has that policy failed to render positive results? Why did strategic defiance on the part of Hamas against Israel cause colossal physical and material losses of Palestinians holed up in besieged Gaza Strip? Turkish President Tayyip Erdogen who has, since October 7, been condemning Israel has not taken the step to break off his country’s relations with the Jewish state. as recalling his ambassador is not enough.
Strategic defiance means an approach to resist the enemy in a calculated and an intelligent manner both in the battlefield and at the diplomatic front so as to pre-empt further damage caused by the adversary.
The term ‘strategic defiance’ got popular when General Mirza Aslam Beg, Pakistan’s former army chief, in his address before senior military officers opposed the US-led attack on Iraq, called the Gulf War, in January 1991. At that time, the US had raised half a million-strong multinational force including those from Arab-Muslim countries to force Iraq to end its military occupation over Kuwait. When Saddam Hussein refused........
© The Express Tribune
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
