[LCM Articles] The Economist's take on the war

[Fadi P. Kanaan]

Lebanon and Israel

Nasrallah wins the war

Aug 17th 2006
>From The Economist print edition

Bad news all round, especially if more of Israel's neighbours come to
believe in Hizbullah's methods

 
 
HASSAN NASRALLAH and Ehud Olmert both say they won. But in asymmetrical
warfare, the test of victory is asymmetrical too. Israel's prime
minister set himself an absurd aim-the complete demolition of
Hizbullah's power in Lebanon-and failed to achieve it. The shrewder Mr
Nasrallah said victory would consist merely of surviving, and Hizbullah,
however battered, did survive. On the last day it was not just standing,
it also fired a record 246 rockets into Israel. 
Hizbullah being what it is, Mr Nasrallah lost no time claiming that this
was "a strategic, historic victory"; crowds in Tehran chorused that
Israel had been "destroyed". Did Hizbullah not kill 159 Israelis,
including 116 Zionist soldiers? Israel being what it is, Mr Olmert's
political foes lost no time denouncing the prime minister's failings as
Israelis sank into a collective despond about the disappointing showing
of their army and the blunting of their country's long-term deterrent
power.
Mr Olmert, echoed by George Bush, says that Israel won because it has
transformed Lebanon. Under Security Council Resolution 1701, which
brought the fragile ceasefire, Hizbullah is to withdraw north of the
Litani river, make way for the Lebanese army plus a strengthened UN
force, and disarm. That would, Israel says, put an end to Hizbullah's
"state within state". And so it would-if it happened. But it may not.
Within days of the ceasefire, Mr Nasrallah said it was "too early" to
discuss disarming. Syria's president, Bashar Assad, said so too. And the
likelihood of the Lebanese army or a UN force trying to disarm Hizbullah
against its will is zero. Two years ago, the UN passed a splendid
resolution, 1559, demanding the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon.
If Hizbullah did not comply then, why should it do so now, flushed with
self-declared victory and with Israel's army still inside Lebanon?

Lebanon could lose too

The plain fact is that if Hizbullah is ever to give up its weapons and
become just another political party, it will be through the pressure of
the other Lebanese, not as a direct result of Israel's war (see
<http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7796490>
article). The diplomacy should therefore not be built on the pretence
that Israel won a war it didn't. The more that Israel and America claim
otherwise, the less able the caught-in-the-middle Lebanese government of
Fouad Siniora will be to extract favours from Mr Nasrallah. A better
idea would be to deprive Hizbullah of the pretexts it has invented for
keeping up its war. It would be useful, for example, if Israel gave up
the Shebaa Farms, the bit of Syrian territory Hizbullah says is
Lebanon's, and accepted a prisoner swap. 
However, Israel needs to save face too. Mr Olmert has no interest in
concessions that reinforce the idea that he led his warrior nation to
defeat. Israelis feel they dare not let their country look weak. And now
come ominous signs that it does. Mr Assad has started talking again
about liberating the Golan Heights. Having previously denied arming
Hizbullah, Iran this week started to boast about the weapons it sent. If
Israel is to give up Shebaa at such a time it must have something big in
return, such as the actual removal of Hizbullah's arms-not just their
concealment-in the south at least. Since America is not seen as an
honest broker, closing such a deal may well require some new mediator.
France? Turkey? Germany? Without an agreement, the war could resume at
any moment.

When will they ever learn?

If a deal is done, what lesson will Israel take from this war? Probably
something along the lines of: more infantry, fewer tanks. Those who
preach sagaciously from afar that Israel should learn something
bigger-the necessity of making peace instead of relying on force-have
not been paying attention. 
The hubris that blinded Israel after its great victory of 1967 cleared
decades ago. Since the 1980s at least two prime ministers, Yitzhak Rabin
and Ehud Barak, gave their all in the search for peace. The first paid
with his life and the second with his job. Even the hawkish Ariel Sharon
budged. He pulled Israel out of Gaza and knocked the legs from under
Israel's settler movement. The trouble for Israel is that in
peacemaking, as well as in war, the enemy gets a vote. What the
well-meaning protesters (see
<http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7796479>
article) who have been marching in Europe in praise of Hizbullah refuse
to acknowledge is that today, as in the 1940s, Israel still has some
neighbours who continue to deny its very right to exist as a Jewish
state.
This is not to say that Israel is blameless. It has made mistakes
aplenty down the years. This war was probably just that: a mistake after
a provocation and not a plot cooked up either by Israel and America
against Iran, or by Iran against Israel and America, as the rival
conspiracy theories go. It followed a bigger blunder: Israel's failure
after Yasser Arafat's death to work seriously with his moderate
successor, Mahmoud Abbas. 
But peace does not depend only on Israel. Six years ago Israel withdrew
from Lebanon to a border painstakingly demarcated by the UN. Hizbullah
fought on anyway. Like Iran, it says its aim is Israel's destruction.
Though an authentic political movement with a domestic agenda in
Lebanon, it is also blatantly anti-Semitic. Mr Nasrallah once reflected
that collecting the Jews in Palestine made them easier to wipe out. Its
al-Manar TV station is a beacon of hate: one series purported to show
Jews murdering Christian children to use their blood for Passover bread.
Whether Hizbullah and Iran seriously propose to destroy Israel is hard
to tell, but it is what they keep saying-and they have imitators. The
Palestinians' ruling Hamas movement has not yet dared to say out loud
that it accepts even the principle of sharing Palestine with a Jewish
state.
Following Mr Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, Mr Olmert hoped to follow
his example by uprooting Israeli settlements from much of the West Bank.
Hizbullah has now killed stone dead the idea of Israel giving up
territory again without cast-iron security assurances. So there will be
no leaving any of the West Bank until there is a deal. Israel must find
some way to re-engage with the Palestinians. But right now it is not
even talking to Hamas-and Hamas, after the Lebanon war, is in danger of
subscribing anew to the old illusion that Palestine can be liberated by
force. Black days ahead for the Middle East. 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/lebanon-articles/attachments/20060818/cceafe5d/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13733 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/lebanon-articles/attachments/20060818/cceafe5d/attachment.jpg