The story of the week at least in the United States is the low-grade war Israel has undertaken against Hamas and Hezbollah and, by extension, Palestine and Lebanon.I haven't followed the conflict as well as I probably should have, but my first reaction was supportive of Israel. Given how high the stakes are in the region (notably an ebullient Iran sowing dissention in Iraq, playing diplomatic poker regarding its nuclear abitions, and continuing to support Hamas and Hezbollah, militant groups with political representation in Palestine and Lebanon, respectively), I can understand and sympathize with Israel's fury over the abduction of her soldiers.
Israel seems much more comfortable defending itself after the withdrawal, which has allowed the country to fortify along borders that are accepted by most international authorities. We now know that a withdrawal did not portend peace in the region. Nonetheless, Israel's grievance seems legitimate: although both Hamas and Hezbollah are active players in the Palestian Authority's and Lebanon's democratically-elected government (with Hamas winning a stunning mandate in Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006), they have maintained their paramilitary actions, with Hezbollah in particular enjoying materiel support from Syria and Iran.
In January, foreign policy wonks were debating whether or not Hamas would be forced to cease its terrorist operations now that they were now responsible for the mundanities of government: making the payroll, providing clean water, and removing garbage from the streets of Palestinian cities. That question seems to be answered, which is why Israel attacked.
I can understand their frustration. Quite simply, if a militant group wishes to be a player in democratic politics, then it must disarm. Now I know this is a pipe dream, especially in Lebanon. There, Hezbollah seems to run southern Lebanon as its feif and has threatened a reprisal of the nation's suicidal civil war if it is forced to disarm. But then - why the pretense of democratic action? Why must they force the Palestinian President and the Lebanese Prime Minister to utter sad little claims of plausible deniability for their governments' actions against Israel?
With the abduction of a handful of soldiers, I can understand why Isreal struck back as hard as they did. I don't see the effectiveness of a political solution solving the conflict between Isreal and these two political movements who behave like political parties but who also continue terrorist operations against Israel. And so there we are, in a state of war.
One thing that seems counter-intuitive to me is the concentration of Israel's wrath upon Beirut, Lebanon's capital. The south of Lebanon is Hezbollah's stronghold, and as a result of two decades of civil war, they have few friends in Beirut. Indeed, the strikes on Beirut seem may alienate the very people that Israel most needs now: an urban population of Muslims and Christians who fought hard for a Lebanese democracy (remember how they threw out the Syrian military and intelligence thugs a year ago?) that now seems to hang by a thread.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I wish I understood this sad return to war better. Feel free to leave comments or thoughts of your own (I'm especially interested in what you have to say, Henry).
Photo credits: Reuters (top) and the New York Times (bottom).
1 comment:
Hi Frank,
You're broadly correct in my opinion. However, one must ask why is Hezbollah doing this now. It seems to me that after their high in 2000 after the Israeli withdrawal, their popularity has massivly diminished. Many Lebanese (both Christian and Muslim) see Hezbollah as a major obstacle to peace and economic development. On top of which the Lebanese now refuse to be Syria's (or indeed Iran's) pawn - as witnessed by the waning of Syrian influence following the assasination of a major Lebanese politician.
Hezbollah were counting on massive Israeli retaliation (and the inevitable emotive images of dead civilians) to bolster their domestic support. However I think this is all about Iran's domestic politics and regional aspirations. Who is the big winner from this? Iran. Their efforts to forge a militant pan-regional Shia coalition under their command is suceeding. Their president promised massive development and raised standards of living, promises that he cannot deliver. So, by provoking the West into placing economic sanctions against Iran - through WMD development, tinkering in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah - he can then say to his population, "I couldn't deliver what I promised because of the Great Satan. Sorry." The worst thing is that his policy is working. Sanctions are inevitable, war with Iran possible. The youth of Iran, once upon a time drifting Westward have now been radicalised.
Why is Beirut being bombed? Beirut is one of the most sectarian cities anywhere in the world. The north is broadly Christian and untouched by Israel, however the south of the city is very much a Hezbollah stronghold - supported by an army of poor urban Shia.
What should Israel do? There's little they can do. Catch 22. If they let their soldiers be kidnapped without retaliation it will make their enemies bolder - they'll correctly see it as a sign of weakness. If they launch an all-out invasion they'll be doing exactly what Hezbollah wants them to do. I believe their current action is the least bad option.
What should the West do? A multi-national (including Muslim) force should patrol southern Lebanon and get medievel on Hezbollah's arse. This will never happen though - we're not about to do Israel's dirty work and put our already overstretched militaries in further danger.
What should Hezbollah do? Bugger off.
Post a Comment