The International Coordination by Israel During the Raid - Case Study Example

The International Coordination by Israel During the Raid Governments, and their security agencies face frustrations occasioned by the lack of international cooperation from other states in the fight against terror threats facing their countries or their citizens, which essentially makes them result to taking direct military action against terrorists essentially compromising international standards to counterterrorism. Such is the case with the way Israel approached the Entebbe kidnapping incident when rescuing their citizens. In this case, there were repercussions from the incident with a group either supporting or castigating the approach that Israel used during what has become one of the most daring rescues in the world. Focusing on the Entebbe raid by the Israelis, this essay discusses the international coordination by Israel during, on, and after the raid. In addition, the essay elucidates on the repercussions of the approach taken by Israel while giving an analysis of the application of counterterrorism standards taken by Israel to other nations. It is crucial to provide a synopsis of the Entebbe raid in order to understand the events that took place later. It started with the hijacking of an Air France plane, which had left Israel for France carrying about 250 passengers and 12 crewmembers on June 28, 1976. First, the plane landed at Benghazi, in Libya, and subsequently left for Entebbe in Uganda where the then dictator president, Idi Amin, appeared to be supporting these terrorists (McDowell, 1976). These hijackers, acting on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, were agitating for the release of terrorists jailed in Israel, France, Kenya, West Germany, and Switzerland, which meant that Israel had to coordinate with these nations in order to map the way forward. However, the terrorists released non-Israeli passengers on June 30, which lead to an Israeli commando unit rescuing the Israeli hostages from Entebbe on July 3, 1976 (McDowell, 1976). Prior to the raid, Israel asked the US to deliver a message to Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s president, seeking his lobbying of the PLO and Idi Amin to ask for the release of the hostages without any success. In addition, Israel sent a former military envoy to Uganda to try to convince Idi Amin to ask the terrorists to release the hostages. However, the terrorists gave Israel more days, which were important for Israel since it was able to plan for a military counterterrorism solution, which seemed to be the only solution. Nonetheless, it was impossible for the country to conduct such a raid without coordinating with other nations (Moaz, 1981). In effect, Israel sought the assistance of other nations, such as Kenya, due to the country’s strategic location. While Kenya could not commit immediately, the country subsequently provided the logistical support to Israel. In this case, the Israelis used Kenya’s main airport to refuel their jumbos and as the essential location to offer immediate medical support to the hostages and any other injured individual after the commandos were through with the rescue (Forest & Giroux, 2011). The world received Israel's counterterrorism approach to raiding another sovereign nation with mixed reactions. On one hand, there were those nations that supported this action while other nations opposed this approach terming it an act of aggression. In this case, the then Prime Minister of Mauritius and chair of the defunct Organization of African Union (OAU) raised a complaint with the United Nations Security Council on July 9, 1976 (McDowell). However, there was no any punitive action taken by the Council although there was widespread condemnation of the approach taken by Israel with the OAU calling the approach an antagonistic action. On the other hand, the United States also noticed that the approach by Israel did not respect the sovereignty of Uganda (McDowell, 1976). While there were no major international repercussions on Israel, it is important to point out that PLO linked terrorists bombed the Norfolk Hotel in Nairobi in 1990 since the owners were Israelis and Nairobi played an instrumental role in the Entebbe raid (Forest & Giroux, 2011). In this case, the terrorists targeted the international interests of Israelis, which is a repercussion of the Entebbe raid. Finally, it is important to point out that the approach taken by Israel was an illegal and aggressive approach in counterterrorism. In fact, the United Nations Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4 provides, “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations” (as cited in McDowell, 1976, p. 1228). Indeed the United States also noted the approach taken by Israel “involved a temporary breach of the territorial integrity of Uganda…such a breach would be impermissible under the Charter of the United Nations” (as cited in McDowell, 1976, p. 1232). While the counterterrorism approach used by Israel does not meet standard practice since it was a breach of the UN Charter, it is evident that Israel operated using different standards in comparison to other nations. In this case, it would be impermissible for other nations to take a similar approach to the one that Israel took, and such an approach could have attracted punitive measures although Israel appears immune. Indeed, African nations noted that the approach by Israel towards counterterrorism was against the expected practice although the country appeared to have embraced it as a policy, which put the security of nations at risk. In this regard, McDowell (1976) noted, “No country, and certainly no African country, can henceforth be secure against such acts, on which the Israeli government seems to wish to confer the status of State practice” (1228). In effect, this emphasizes that Israel’s counterterrorism approach was not standard practice although the US and the UN appeared to have sanctioned the raid. In conclusion, nations face challenges regarding the counterterrorism approaches they will use to rescue their citizens in instances that involved other nations. Case in point, Israel’s approach to raid Entebbe and rescue the hostages was an act in breach of the UN Charter although it gained support from other nations. Nonetheless, the raid involved international coordination with nations such as Kenya, which was subsequently bombed as a repercussion on the role it played. However, it is important to point out that Israel did not use standard practice during the Entebbe raid although the country appears to have perfected unconventional approaches in counterterrorism. References Forest, J. J. F., & Giroux, J. (2011). Terrorism and Political Violence in Africa: Contemporary Trends in a Shifting Terrain. Perspectives on Terrorism, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/152/html Maoz, Z. (1981, December). The Decision to Raid Entebbe: Decision Analysis Applied to Crisis Behavior. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25(4), 677-707. McDowell, E. C. (1976, September). United Nations: Security Council Debate and Draft Resolution Concerning the Operation of Rescue Hijacked Hostages at the Entebbe Airport. International Legal Materials, 15(5), 1224-1234. Read More