Fallout of the Lebanon war
TMV’s Note: This post has been been reposted from late last night. Due to its importance, we have put it up at the top of this site at this time. After you read it please SCROLL DOWN since some NEWER POSTS are below it.
The worst lessons to draw from the Lebanon war would be for Hezbollah or Hamas to imagine that terrorism can destroy Israel or for Israel to continue to think that it can create security through force alone.
The right-wing Economist magazine of London has declared Nasrallah the war’s winner. That is going too far but Hezbollah is still standing and its claim to a victory of sorts is hard to deny.
How to interpret this turn of events? Hopefully, Israel is learning to admit that using raw military power to flatten wide territories, including Gaza, the West Bank and south Lebanon, is not a deterrent for those who want to remove it from the Middle East.
Equally, Hezbollah and Hamas are seriously mistaken if they think that merely surviving Israeli attacks gives them a platform to start dislodging the Jewish State.
Finding peace in the Middle East is much harder now than six weeks ago. Israel can no longer make any compromises without being utterly certain that its enemies will not try to harm it. Hezbollah and Hamas will not compromise because the wars with Israel increase their political and military power in their own territories.
If this were merely a matter of stalemate, all sides could simply nurse their wounds and prepare for the next round. But the situation is too fluid and volatile for that. At this time, there are no elements of stability because none of Israel’s enemies submits to any central authority. At the same time, Israel refuses to occupy any territories to finally destroy its enemies and stabilize the region under a new political order.
That leaves power vacuums. Hezbollah and Hamas are struggling for influence to fill those vacuums within their own territories. They have gained popularity and prestige because of standing up to Israel. Inevitably, their rivals will try terrorism within Israel as a quick route to competing with Hezbollah and Hamas.
This is especially true in Gaza and the West Bank. Nobody has the means at this time to arbitrate the rivalry among armed militias as they try to gain prestige by attacking Israel.
Whatever the PLO’s fecklessness, Israel has delivered Gaza to Hamas on a silver platter by destroying PLO as an administrative entity. By reaching standstill with Hezbollah, it has handed considerable political power to that faction in Lebanese politics.
How great their gains are remains to be seen but the elements of instability have increased among Israel’s enemies. That is never good for any warrior state confronted by large numbers of influential terrorists who would rather die than compromise because of their belief systems.
13 Responses to “Fallout of the Lebanon war”
No rational adult denies two facts about Israel:
1 – It has an unalterable, irrefutable right to exist.
2 – It has absolutely no right to be stupid.
What Israel did in Lebanon was stupid. Violations of Fact #2 call the viability of #1 into question. Before the Israel/Hezbollah war there were 3 democracies in the middle east. Now, because one democracy attacked the territory of another democracy (Weren’t we reassuted recently that democracies never make war on each other?) there are 1.5 democracies. Lebanon was returned to the influence of Syria and Hezbollah by Israel. And they haven’t even got the two IDF soldiers back.
Meanwhile the government of Iraq is pushed even further into the arms of Iran. This has been a disaster for Israel and the United States of America
At least Israel will investigate what went wrong, it will be an interesting report. Hezbollah will draw dangerous conclusions, and become emboldened. What this war will do to the Sunni-Shiite divide remains to be seen but, yes, instability is the more than likely result.
im sorry, but this article presupposes that israel has only used force in the attempt to live peacably.
This is a falacious statement.
Israel unilaterally pulled out of lebanon 6 years ago. It unillaterally withdrew from gaza.
What occured? In gaza, hamas became the ruleing party and began firing missles into Iraelu territory. Over the past 6 years, hezbollah has gained significant political inroads into lebanon and has built an indepenent army.
Israel was stupid? What do you people think the united states would have done if an indepedent army from canada had made incursions into its sovereign territory and killed its citizens, or mexico started lobbing missles into texas? Think we would have first attempted negotiotiation? Heck no….
Israel was stupid in that they allowed for a un ceasefire, and didnt carpet bomb the entire region.
When Britain was putting down the Ira, and keeping troops in Ireland, I didnt see the mass codemnation from the UN and other countries occuring on a daily basis. Why should Israel be held to a higher standard.
Hezbollah isn’t just popular for “standing up” to Israel, though it’s certainly a big factor (you’d do it too, if the other side bombed your house and killed your entire family you’d give a fuck about the Grand Scheme of Things). Part of the reason Hezbollah is popular is because they provide services the Lebanese government doesn’t. They provide schools and clinics, social services. They are in some ways a government of their own. The Tamil Rebels do the same things, endear themselves to the populace by building schools and providing for the families of their fighters. The fact the Sri Lanka government is disputably as brutal as the rebels themselves doesn’t help. Same goes for the Colombian government and the drug cartels. If governments actually provided for their citizens they wouldn’t have to worry about substitutes. If you want Hezbollah to not have influence, start by organizing Lebanon’s government into some semblance of working order.
Jon, Lebanon is not a democracy and hezbollah is part of the government.
“Hopefully, Israel is learning to admit that using raw military power to flatten wide territories, including Gaza, the West Bank and south Lebanon, is not a deterrent for those who want to remove it from the Middle East.”
………………….
Oh really, is that so? In fact raw military power IS a deterrent if the military is actually ALLOWED TO FINISH THE JOB. BTW, Brij Khindaria and others who constantly whine that there is no military solution to terrorism, what is your ingenious solution to deterring terrorist groups who want to remove Israel from the Middle East? None of you seem to have any answer.
Laura, perhaps you could elucidate a little further. What, exactly, do you mean by ALLOWED TO FINISH THE JOB?
Laura, Israel has fought how many wars now?, They were in Lebanon how many years? What Israel would need to do to “finish� the job would be the mass execution of every Palestinian and Shiite on the planet.
I don’t see a political solution anymore, it will be one indecisive war/raid/ bombing after another. Both sides want to use violence to get the others attention, we will not see peace in the Middle East in our lifetimes.
Laura view is a Righteous God given right to cleanse the ME of the Islamic militants. How often have we heard the term “wack a mole” to tell us how effective a hawkish military action is working in the ME. Laura may even be part of the Rapture Ready crowd. These people want God to convert all non-Christians or wipe them from the map. The USSR/Afghan, US/Afghan and US/Iraq war have shown how effective war is in the ME. The neocon crowd forgot the Algerian example.
Extremists(‘ leaders) should be taken out completely -> or at least as complete as possible. There is no use in dealing with extremists: they are not able to compromise. They refuse to do so, because they believe they have Allah on their side. If they wage war and kill infidels, they will be blessed, if they wage war against infidels and get killed themselves, they will be martyrs and will receive a lot of rewards, immediately in heaven.
There is absolutely no use in dealing with them.
As I wrote before, I was reading Tony Zinnis book (with Tom Clancy). Zinni is now a retired general and, among other things, former Commander in Chief of CENTCOM.
I finished it a couple of hours ago. He had some great ideas. He made clear though, that he believes (like I believe) that there is no use in dealing with extremists. He even wrote that, for a lasting peace to be able in Palestine / Israel, a civil war in Palestine will most likely be required: Hamas is an extremist organization, dedicated to destroy Israel and will only agree to periods of ‘rest and peace’ to rearm itself and to regain strength, so he reasoned. Of course, as you all know, I completely agree with that.
However, he also explained that destroying the extremist organizations isn’t enough. They have a large PR machine and play important roles in the countries they are active: build schools, hospitals, houses, etc.
He explained that, at the moment the West, the US and Israel, are fighting against extremists, we should immediately rebuild the countries in which the fightings occures even during the fighting to a degree (in secured areas for instance). What’s necessary at that point in time, is a new and adapted Marshall plan in his opinion. We should start working with the people in all possible areas: in the area of national security / public safety, economically ánd politically.
We should, Zinni wrote, have clear, ‘large’ long term goals, but we should work in small goals / parts. Local initiatives are greatly important: build schools houses and hospitals, etc., with the local residents. Bring in knowledge and financial resources, but also use local knowledge and manpower: this creates jobs and makes the people to have a band with the different local projects. As I said at the same time, large projects should also be started for the central government.
I know most people don’t take Clancy’s books serious, but this particular book: I find it to be of great value: the main author is ret. General Zinni himself.
All in all: only military options don’t solve the problem, but just political / diplomatic means will not do the trick either: extremist organizations, be it especially their leaders, should be destroyed and after that a clear plan should be drawn, with a clear strategy, in all different kinds of areas.
This demands commitment though. It means that troops will not be out of a country in 2 years. It will also cost a lot of money, but the alternative is that certain countries will, en masse, turn to extremism and become safe havens for terrorists who will hurt us even more.
Laura,
I must respectfully disagree. You may not remember it, but after the assasination of Rafik Hariri, the Syrians were thrown out of Lebanon by a popular uprising, dubbed the “Cedar Revolution”. Right-wing bloggers coverage of this seemed to consist solely of picture of photogenic young women in tight t-shirts, so the subtleties of the process might have been lost on you.
After the last Syrina soldier left (April 26, 2005, Syrians celbrated April 27, 2005 as Free from Syria Day), the Lebanese held a Parliamentary election in May 2005, and seated an anti-Syrian, pro-sectarian government that actively worked to diminish Hezbollah influence, if only for self-interest. You see the majority of the country is either Maronite Christian or Sunni Muslim. Given time, the Hezbollah could have been shut out, but it was going to take time and patience.
Because Israel had neither, both Syria, and especially Hezbollah, have regained influence over Lebanon. I saw video of Hazbollah representatives with wads of hundred dollar bills, coordinating reconstruction, weeks before any western government could or would have forces on the ground. Congratulations Israel, you pushed Lebanon into bed with your worst enemies.
If Israel had coordinated with the admittedly weak Lebanese Army, treated the government as an entity with a common interest-removing Hezbollah’s control over southern Lebanon-then *that* would have been a triumph for the good guys. Instead it seems that Israel is learning the only thing the United States government can teach these days: total incompetence.
Umm, of course Syrians wouldn’t celebrate Free from Syria Day. That day was celebrated by the Lebanese. (I *really* wish I read the preview more closely)
I’m always late to the fire, but here are my three cents.
Two odd statements above:
No rational adult denies two facts about Israel:
1 – It has an unalterable, irrefutable right to exist.
I’m not sure why any particular state has the ‘RIGHT’ to exist. I am NOT saying I want to destroy Israel, or think it has no rights. I have relatives there believe it or not. But, I think this is not a rational statement. ‘States’ are defined and redefined all the time. Created for many different reasons. One problem in the Middle East right now is the imperial creation of States that ignored local issues by imperial powers. Never goes down without long and bloody wars.
So, a real mis-fire right off the top.
Then an extreme POV from Mr. Van der Galien:
“Extremists(‘ leaders) should be taken out completely -> or at least as complete as possible. There is no use in dealing with extremists: they are not able to compromise.â€?
The problem is, who defines who is an extremist leader? Was Hitler? Was Stalin? Was Reagan? Was Churchill? Was Nixon? Was Che? It is sort of a brain game to say something like that because you are hoping that everyone agrees with your opinion, which may be extreme as well.
I know what you are trying to get at. I understand your anger. But I think you are playing too fast and loose with language that only creates a bigger mess. I would offer I dislike many leaders. The Royal family in the Kingdom of Saud for example. The Shaw of Iran was a real problem too. But Teddy Roosevelt lead his share of invasions in his time. Let’s find a better way to discuss this without resorting to assassinations. I guarantee you would find that a disagreeable POV once the world embraces actions like that.
I am always interested to see your POV because you seem to thinking pretty rationally, but often in the end game emotion takes over and you grab for a gun. I wonder, really, what is your solution to this problem? Do you have one?
gdgup,
In this context I use “right to exist” as a placeholder phrase for something that defines the situation better. Israel, as with all true nations, is a functioning political entity whose removal-even bloodlessly-would be seen as a crime against humanity. By way of definition, I believe that the Turkish portion of Cyprus has no right to exist though it is a fact on the ground, and that Kurdistan has a right to exist, even though it is less a fact on the ground and more of a burgeoning concept (One which would be focibly opposed by the Turks BTW, perhaps resulting in NATO going to war with one of its own members. But one crisis at a time).
“Rights” in this context are not settled, automatic privileges. They are perhaps best defined as actions that are not out of keeping with rational human behaviour. Maybe someone more articulate than I can come up with a better phrase, but I specifically meant to counter the idea bruted by some (and not in this thread BTW) that forcible action to remove the political entity that is Israel is a non-starter among raional adult human beings.
“Rights” also require their exercise through the actions of rational adult human beings. Israel’s actions in this war undermine the presupposition that their actions are guided by rational adults who seek to create and support legitimate functioning governments amongst their neighbors.
Jon