‏July 16, 2006 

On the Fighting in Lebanon and Gaza:

Unilateralism Brings War

WHEN ISRAEL seeks to effect political changes, it relies on military might. The logic of force has always been the central factor in determining its policy. This was the case in 1982, when it sought to eliminate the PLO in Lebanon and impose a pro-Israel regime there. This was also the case in the operation of 2002 euphemistically called "Defensive Shield," when it re-conquered the territories of the Palestinian Authority, which had proved insufficiently obedient. It is also the case in the two-front war that Israel wages today, which is intended to topple the Hamas regime in Gaza and weaken the Hezbollah in Lebanon.  

The current war is taking place in areas from which Israel withdrew unilaterally, proclaiming that it had no further intentions of ruling them. It withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000 and from Gaza in August 2005. As the centerpiece of his election campaign, its new prime minister, Ehud Olmert, proclaimed an intention to withdraw––again unilaterally––from portions of the West Bank. Despite the proclamations, however, today's war is proof that such withdrawal, in the absence of agreement with the other side, is self-defeating.

Each such pullout had a hidden strategic goal. The withdrawal from Lebanon was intended to eliminate the raison-d-être of the Hezbollah, Syria's protégé, thereby enabling Israel to perpetuate its hold on the Golan Heights. The withdrawal from Gaza was meant to soften future opposition to the annexation of parts of the West Bank, where settlement blocs are located. 

The present crisis results from Israel's refusal to seek a comprehensive solution. It prefers to exploit divisions within the Arab world, while the fundamentalist movements take on steam. Their rise is then used to justify the pretext that "there's no one to talk to." The prophecy fulfils itself.  

Israel's attempt to escape from the areas it conquered and flattened, without taking any responsibility for the future of the people living there, has only deepened the confrontation. Israel is unwilling to give an account of itself on several questions: Why is it avoiding the negotiating table? Why does it not recognize the rights of its neighbors, as well as their economic and security needs? What gives it the right to determine its borders as it pleases, without taking account of the people on the other side?

 

AS FOR Hamas and Hezbollah, which have become major players thanks to Israel's policies, they too seek to make political gains by the use of force. In both cases, the goal is to overcome internal problems that arose against the background of the Israeli withdrawals.

Israel's pullout from Gaza contributed, indeed, to the Hamas election victory, but this success confused the victor. It forced Hamas to choose between performing its function as a government and continuing armed resistance. Hamas decided to rule and fight simultaneously. The result was a series of military adventures without strategy.

Hezbollah too is facing a hard political crisis. The withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon, and the victory of the opposition in the parliamentary elections there, endangers its continuation as an armed militia. The new Lebanese government wants to be rid of this militia, claiming that there is no need for a resistance movement now that Israel has returned to the international border. This claim fits the decision of the UN Security Council, which called not only for the Syrian withdrawal, but also for the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas consulted with any other factor among their peoples before launching their "quality" attacks. And yet they expect the governments of Lebanon and Palestine to absorb the results. Israel understands this tricky situation. It aims its blows in such a way as to deepen internal divisions, attempting to separate the resistance movements from other political forces and indeed from the masses in general.      

 

THIS TWO-FRONT war will result, no doubt, in political upsets throughout the region. Those who sell their people illusions will be forced, sooner or later, to pay a political price. That is what has happened to US President George W. Bush since his invasion of Iraq. That is what happened to Yasser Arafat after he conned his people with promises of liberation. It will also happen to the government of Israel, which promised "a country that's fun to live in," but has instead merely added another round in the rising spiral of destruction.

 Home

Home in English