Israel is purportedly engaged in critical negotiations with the United States, as it faces a pivotal strategic decision following the Iranian attack on Sept. 30.
The central question is whether Israel should launch a large-scale retaliatory strike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, and potentially oil refineries, or opt for a more restrained response.
The parameters of a more limited response are less defined but might include strikes on the military bases or launch sites from which the missiles were fired.
Additionally, a symbolic gesture, such as a flyover of Tehran, could serve as a warning to the Iranian regime.
One compelling solution to this dilemma would be for Israel to bring the matter into the realm of global diplomacy and public opinion. By doing so, Israel would engage the global community in shaping the nature of its response.
Israel could present the following proposal to the international community:
—The United States, Europe, and NATO allies should enter an international understanding, either through the United Nations or independently — that, in exchange for Israel choosing the limited response, Israel would be provided with key strategic support. This support would include:
—A reaffirmation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which prohibits Hezbollah’s presence south of the Litani River. Notably, Lebanon has recently expressed a similar intention to reassert its military presence in the buffer zone.
—A commitment to support Israel’s right to launch a more comprehensive attack in the future if Iran, or its proxies, renews missile or rocket strikes against Israeli civilians.
This diplomatic initiative offers Israel an opportunity to reshape global discourse, which has historically been biased against it.
Rather than passively accepting international condemnation, Israel would take the initiative by proposing a moderated response, thus demonstrating its commitment to peace while challenging the global community to adopt a more constructive role in promoting stability.
Such a proposal would also place the onus on the global community to broker pragmatic solutions, rather than repeatedly pushing for a ceasefire that frames Israel as the aggressor.
Israel often finds itself isolated in these situations, relying heavily on U.S. support, with military force as its primary means of defense.
However, recent shifts in global attitudes, spurred by Israel’s extraordinary successes in intelligence, technology, and military operations, may offer a unique opportunity for this diplomatic effort to succeed.
Critics may argue that, given Israel’s recent military achievements, the country should capitalize on its momentum and continue its campaign.
However, this perspective overlooks the broader implications of diplomacy as a form of victory. Furthermore, such a move could be perceived as magnanimous, strengthening Israel’s international standing.
Should this diplomatic initiative fail to gain international backing, Israel would retain the option to continue a more aggressive military strategy, with clear justification for doing so.
This proposal strengthens Israel’s quest to assure the world that it is an it is a peace, loving country and any of the fighting that’s going on would stop immediately if attacks against would stop.
Mark L. Cohen has his own legal practice and was counsel at White & Case starting in 2001, after serving as international lawyer and senior legal consultant for the French aluminum producer Pechiney. Cohen was a senior consultant at a Ford Foundation Commission, an advisor to the PBS television program "The Advocates," and Assistant Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He teaches U.S. history at the business school in Lille l'EDHEC. Read Mark L. Cohen's Reports — More Here.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.