Israel's preemptive actions in Syria: Lessons from Churchill's World War II strategy - opinion

The moment word went forth that Bashar al-Assad had fled Syria and that the country was without any government, Israel took immediate steps to prevent instruments of war from falling into enemy hands. This instantaneous response was intended to protect Israeli, with Israeli air force planes striking various military targets in order to prevent them from falling into enemy hands and endangering the State of Israel. Even though Assad is gone, his replacement is not necessarily a friend of Israel; the militants in Syria have threatened to strike “Jerusalem next.” We don’t know where this is headed and these weapons could have eventually fallen into unfriendly hands. 

The IDF announced that it had “destroyed Syria’s navy.” The Jerusalem Post noted that Israel “had neutralized an entire enemy naval force, along with much of its air force.” The Israeli Navy struck both the Latakia and Al-Bayda ports, where 15 Syrian Navy vessels were docked. This was in addition to Israeli jets destroying vast storage facilities and deposits of Syrian weapons from one part of the country to the next, including rockets, specifically anti-aircraft missiles. The IDF “highlighted that the operation was conducted to stop the fleet’s assets from falling into the hands of hostile elements.” 

By disabling significant parts of the Syrian Air Force and Navy as well as the Syrian systems for both offense and defense, Israel’s swift action has prevented Syria from becoming a wholesale distributor of weapons of war that could serve to threaten Israel’s security either immediately or be carted off for use at a later date. Israel’s quick action helped to save it from additional peril, near or far, sooner or later. 

UN's condemnation of Israel's preemptive strikes

Naturally enough, Arab sources and their representatives in the United Nations condemned the Israeli action. The Arab spokesmen at the UN attempted to show that Israel’s action was a violation of international law, with the UN Special Envoy to Syria saying, “We are continuing to see Israeli movements and bombardments into Syrian territory. This needs to stop” and UN Secretary-General Guterres criticizing Israel’s bombardment, saying he was “particularly concerned” by them. 

These critics would do well to take note of recent history. 

Israel’s stand is reminiscent of British prime minister Winston Churchill’s actions during World War II in ordering the British Navy to destroy the French Naval Fleet that was docked in North African ports. In September 1939, France joined Britain in declaring war on Germany. In June 1940, however, France surrendered to Germany. Britain accepted the French retreat but demanded that the French naval fleet come immediately into British ports. When France delayed complying with this order, the danger was that the French Fleet, one of the largest in the world, would fall into German hands and be used in military action against Britain. In order to prevent this, Churchill ordered the British Fleet to destroy French warships situated in North African ports. Among the French vessels that were destroyed were two battleships, light cruisers, some submarines, eight destroyers, and approximately 200 smaller vessels such as minesweepers. This resulted in heavy loss of life among the French Navy personnel, with 1,700 French sailors killed. 

The similarity between Britain’s conduct then, in the Battle of Britain, and Israel’s actions in the current crisis with the Arab world, are patently clear. Israel will undoubtedly continue to destroy material that might be employed in an attack on Israel. Those who criticize Israel for this preemptive act could derive an understanding of the situation from Churchill’s statement in Parliament explaining why he gave the order for the destruction of the French fleet in July 1940. The statesman said that he regretted the necessity of this action, which he explained was imperative in order to prevent these ships from falling into German hands and threatening British mastery of the seas, especially the English Channel. 

Churchill noted, “We are moving through a period of extreme danger and of splendid hope, when every virtue of our[s] will be tested and all that we have and honour will be at stake. It is no time for doubts. This is the supreme hour.” 

Israel can proclaim the same conviction. 

In concluding his speech to Parliament, Churchill said, “I leave the judgment of our action with confidence to Parliament. I leave it to the nation. I leave it to the United States. I leave it to the world and history.” 

Netanyahu could equally say the same. 

The writer is the James G. McDonald professor of American history, emeritus, and former chairman of the Department of American Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.