Politics

The Middle East Mess - Israel in Lebanon

Fresh off the press: US Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis.

The conflict has been criticized by much of the world. I, too, am appalled, indeed furious, at what Israel can get away with. It is as if Israel got a blank check after World War II, to do as it pleases in the Middle East. And that check has been underwritten by the United States.

But criticism is easy. The really hard questions are: why is Israel behaving as it is? And is it right to do so?

On the first question, it must be remembered that Israel is generally immune to foreign opinion or international pressure. With the support of the US, it has historically managed to act in contravention of ‘International Law’, for instance settling occupied territories of the West Bank. Still, why is it so aggressive now?

There may be several reasons.

• At the domestic level, much has been made of the lack of military experience of the Prime Minister and Defence Minister. So maybe they feel they have something to prove?
• At the international level, just as Iran may have used Hezbollah to prove that it should not be pressured too much on its nuclear program, Israel may be countering by signalling that it will, if necessary, take the short term pain necessary to respond. I believe they call it the game of chicken.
• Another factor that may be the rise of Shia power and the Shia-Sunni divide that has become evident, particularly after Iraq’s move to democracy. This may be a response by the US and Israel to Iran, which sees itself as the leader of Shia-majority countries - Lebanon, Syria, Iraq.
• Finally, and most important, Israel and the US have decided that the status quo - a dormant but potent Hezbollah under the command of Syria - is simply unacceptable. Having removed Syria from Lebanon, they still need to root out its proxy.

Seen in that last context, Israel’s is an excellent response to a long-standing stalemate that it could not previously resolve. So much so, that I am reminded of the Kargil War of 1999. At the time, India’s inability to attack Pakistani positions across the Line of Control severely restricted India’s response leading to heavier casualities and a longer war. It brought to light how nuclear deterrence actually makes the weak (Pakistan) strong, by constraining the strong. While it brought India diplomatic kudos, those kudos were of little use in realigning the LoC to India’s benefit, and a great opportunity to retaliate and redraw the map was lost.

While I may wish to criticize it morally, reality dictates Israel’s to be an excellent strategy. Israel, then, by making its position non-negotiable is indicating that any international settlement must disarm Hezbollah, or risk widening the conflict.

Is this the right thing to do for Israel? From their perspective, it certainly seems to be the case. But does this strategy really make Israel safer? I would argue that if - and its a big if - they succeed in removing Hezbollah (and Hamas), then yes. With Hezbollah gone, no regional power is in a position to challenge their authority. Israel will then have the time it needs to redraw the Palestinian map in the West Bank, and create a two-state solution of its choosing.

There is one caveat. Israel has always adopted a strategy of fighting fire with more fire. It has no friends in the region, and will never have any so long as it continues to push its agenda and solution with complete disregard to the needs and aspirations of others. Not till it accepts and grants the right of existence of a viable Palestinian state will it be able to survive peacefully. In that, Israel is its own greatest enemy.

Is Israel’s response in Lebanon the right thing to do, morally? I suspect not. Too many Lebanese have died, most civilians, to justify it through utilitarianism. In stark contrast to Israel’s assertion of ‘pin-point’ strikes, the air campaign has killed over 330 Lebanese - almost all civilians. Nor it is justified by law - the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, like the deliberate occupation of Palestinian territory, flies in the face of established International Law.

But then, international law is simply an expression of what we would like, which is seldome what will come to pass.

© 2006 The Discomfort Zone.