Devastation in Lebanon
The international conference in Rome failed to come up with a cease fire solution for the Israel-Lebanon conflict, primarily because the US does not want a cease fire. An odd conference it was, with the most legitimately interested parties not participating - Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and Iran. Israel purposely misinterprets the non-decision as a green light to continue destroying south Lebanon and everyone who does not get out of the way - including red cross ambulance drivers and UN observers - in order to destroy Hezbollah. Possessors of superior firepower always seem to naively assume guerrilla forces do not have enough sense to get out of the way of the fire and then fight back from new locations. Perhaps it is not just naievite, but also a desire to punish bystanders.
The Bush Administration’s mouthpiece, Dr. Rice, parrots the simplistic lines about Hezbollah being the instigator and cease fires being no good unless there can be a “sustainable peace”. Sustainability comes in degrees. Permanent sustainability is the ideal, but history shows the difficulty of obtaining it. How realistically sustainable does the US want peace for Lebanon to be? Expecting Hezbollah to lay down its arms, especially after Israel has wreaked such disproportionately responsive havoc, is not realistic, which the US knows, but talking about some “sustainable” phantasm enables Israel to continue the destruction, which is what the US really wants.
The Iraq fiasco show the Bush administration does not understand guerrilla movements, insurgencies and militias. They see these as symptoms of a military problem, solvable with military force, instead of identifying the underlying maladies manifested by the symptoms. Political, social-economic and religious-ethnic problems require more than the use of military force to achieve a solution which has some hope of longevity. In 1979, Jimmy Carter brought Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel together to negotiate and agree on how their countries could live together in peace without the use of military force. That agreement is still in effect 27 years later, which is quite an accomplishment in the middle east.
The US endorsed Israeli devastation of south Lebanon, like the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, is creating new generations of Arabs and Muslims who hate the US and Israel. After 9/11, the neo-cons in the Bush administration leaped in to launch their bogus agenda in Iraq. Most Americans now see the fraud of that endeavor, but the US support for the Israeli attacks on Lebanon shows the neo-cons still hold vast power over the Bush Administration.
Lebanese history over the last several decades is complex. Israel has been there before, most recently ending military occupation in 2000. The US has also been there, Reagan sending armed forces peace keepers to Beirut and then “cutting and running” after a suicide bomber (most likely from Hezbollah) killed 241 of them on October 23, 1983 - the earliest example of the US retreating in the face of middle eastern terrorists. Reagan distracted attention from the bombing by courageously launching an invasion of Grenada two days later. That farce worked for a short while, but the biggest distraction from remembering Reagan’s early encouragement of suicide bombers has been the creation of the mythology that Reagan single handedly ended the cold war.
There is a US backed UN resolution to disband Hezbollah. Though it is not fully realistic, the resolution should be enforced by the UN, not Israel, and the US as a UN superpower should be one of the leaders in getting the UN to enforce it. The US and Israel argue that military devastation of the infrastructure in south Lebanon is necessary to thwart Hezbollah, and that the Lebanese government is too weak to do the job itself. Massive devastation of the infrastructure of a nation, with attendant death and displacement of civilians, in the pursuit of non-governmental militias is unwise, immoral and possibly illegal. Failure to work with the moderate Lebanese government to empower it to better handle matters in its own country is also unwise and immoral, but military powers like the US and Israel cannot abide moderation. Militarists believe “if you are not with us, then you are against us” , a mentality which can only produce the kind of peace that lasts merely until the victor takes his foot off the throat of the vanquished.
posted by Tom Blake | 12:00 PM
5 Comments:
This article rants so much,I hardly know where to begin. I'll have to use a bullet style report to see if I have covered everything.
1. Nations, smaller states, patriot groups, and terrorist groups amass arms to use them. They are not collectors. So is it surprising that Hezbollah would use the arms they have collected? Testing its ability to take on Israel? Why did you not include Hezbollah in your attack on those that cannot abide moderation?
2. What standing does Hezbollah have in Lebanon? It seems to me it is a terrorist group that is so strong as to make the governing of Lebanon nearly impossible. Would the rulers of Lebanon secretly appreciate the elimination of Hezbollah?
3. You apparently don't subscribe to the theory that Iran ordered (or more likely, approved) the attack on Israel. It does seem suspicious given the timing.
4. I wonder who actually contols, or has the most influence on, Hezbollah: Syria or Iran? Which country is predominant in the middle east? I would think Syria because that is an Arab country. Maybe you could research this question.
5. What should have been Israel's reaction to the Hezbollah attack? Killing exactly as many Arabs as Hezbollah killed Jews (I have forgotten the number) and capturing exactly two Hezbollah fighters? Or should Isreal have turned the other cheek? Common wisdom for guerilla defense is to hit back many times harder than the provoking guerilla attack.
6. What has happened is that the episode has shown that the Arab guerillas are strong enough to hang in there. Israel is now talking about containment instead of annhilation. This reminds me of where we are in Iraq.
7. So now maybe we begin to converge in our thinking. The military approach is not working even for Israel. This comes as a surprise to me. I, of course, was not at all surprised that our incursion into Iraq would result in the sad situation we now find. The US must find a true statesman to lead us to find a way to resolve the conflicts. This involves working with other major players in the world. But blaming Israel is not the answer. Now more than ever it is worried about its own survival.
John from Phoenix
John, I claim no expertise in middle eastern affairs and am trying to learn more by monitoring current events and then investigating the historical background. Here is some feedback on your points:
1. Terrorist groups are by definition not moderate. They use means which the community of nations generally considers unacceptable, even though some nations might agree with some of the ends the terrorists seek. Hezbollah is also a political force, aligned with Syria and Iran. All three are jockeying for power position in the middle east and the Muslim world. Fighting with Israel is always seen by these people as a sign of power worthiness, and now since the stupid incursions of the Bush administration, fighting Americans is seen the same way.
2. Hezbollah seems to be a very powerful political and military force in Lebanon, with so much popular support that any Lebanese government must be careful not to alienate their supporters. Lebanese people who believe government should first rely on statesmanship and diplomacy would probably like to see Hezbollah disbanded or at least disarmed, but those who put military force paramount probably want Hezbollah to stay and to remain armed. Those who want disbanding or at least disarmament are probably in the majority, but Lebanon lacks the military strength needed to bring about disbanding or disarming. UN mandated disarmament seems the best course and was being pursued.
3. Many observers believe Hezbollah created this crisis for self-preservation and also to distract the UN from taking action against Iran over the nuclear matters. That sounds quite plausible to me.
4. I think both Syria and Iran are jockeying for power and influence. Iraq and Iran had countered each other, so when we invaded and occupied Iraq, we upset the balance. I think which nation is seen as the pre-eminent Arab country is considered less important than which nations are seen as the leading Shia and Sunni countries.
5. How to respond to attacks by populist terrorist groups is a difficult decision. Treating the perpetrators as criminals and trying to apprehend them is surely acceptable. Attacking the territory from which they operate, obliterating the infrastructure and effectively targeting those who may agree with the ends sought by the terrorists and possibly with the means they use is not acceptable, especially when the result includes almost wanton death of innocent children. Fighting terror with terror does not work. Identifying and addressing the underlying issues which create popular support for the terrorists is the strategy which ultimately promises the best results.
6. Israel has managed to surpass the public opinion blunder the US committed in Iraq.
7. The long range solution to these problems must come from three directions, the US, Israel and the Muslim world. The US must abandon the Bush neo-con mentality and return to the Carter and Clinton style statesmanship and diplomacy - which hopefully will begin with Democrats being returned to power in the Congress and White House. Israel must decide to seek universal acceptance by all the world community, and in particular by Muslim nations, rather than remain in a perpetual siege mentality. Muslims must come up with better ways to address issues of prestige and differences between Shiites and Sunnis, by reasoned discussion and agreement rather than by threats and violence.
5. Hezbollah is also targeting women and children, but its poor technology is delivering missiles to open spaces, whereas Israel is able to hit targets and kill innocent people. Hezbollah is delivering very many missiles most of which are duds. Does that make it less satanic than Israel? We were taught that intent had a significant role in sinfulness.
John from Phoenix
5. One more thing. Fighting terror with terror does work. That is, in fact, Israel's history since 1948. One of my points was that this strategy seems not to be working now, for the first time, because Hezbollah has become too strong. But three generations of success by Israel using terror against terror is not bad in a fast changing world.
Another example of terror against terror working was Saddam Hussein, until he ran into a bigger terrorist. Despite the brutality of him and his sons, fewer people died during his reign than since Bush made his move. Saddam's terror against terror didn't last forever either, but this is a fast changing world.
John from Phoenix
I agree the launching of unguided missiles into Israel by Hezbollah is more sinful than the incidental killing of civilians by Israeli strikes. I also agree the military arm of Hezbollah is the worse actor in general. Military defense of a nation should be determined by the lawful government of that nation, not by a political militia.
Those involved in Hezbollah would serve Lebanon better if they put their efforts into building up the Lebanese government and military - but they are more interested in serving their vision of a larger mission than just benefitting Lebanon - they seek dominance throughout the region. The mission of Hezbollah is like that of the American neo-cons, except that the neo-cons are working through the Bush administration rather than as a militia.
When targets of terrorism fight back like terrorists, they lower themselves to that demeaning level. Terror can be used as a tactic by those in power, such as Saddam and the Nazis, or by those out of power, like al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Terrorist regimes eventually fall, when the internal vicitms of terror develop an effective underground resistance and when other nations decide to support the resistance in overthrowing the regime. That is what happened to the Nazis and might have eventually happened in Iraq if George W. Bush had not jumped the gun.
Israel is a unique case. It is not a terrorist regime. It is the victim of the greatest number of terrorist attacks, generated out of fanatic religious bigotry and narrow minded disregard of Israeli territorial needs. For almost sixty years, Israel has responded to terror with terror. Such response is not necessary to defend and preserve Israel. Maintaining security, defending against attacks, proportionately responding in an effort to apprehend and eliminate the attacks, and working with its neighbors and the world community to assist in eliminating such attacks is what is needed.
Disproportionate responses feed an unhealthy desire for retribution, but all that does is perpetuate and escalate the desire of the terrorists to retaliate. The same goes for the supposed deterrent effect; disproportionate responses actually encourage more attacks. The intermediate solution is to restrain the attacks in such a way that they diminish. The long range solution is to work with the world wide Muslim community to change the way they relate to Israel.
Post a Comment
<< Home