16 July
2006
Israel’s Invasion, Syria’s War
Beirut, Lebanon
ISRAEL’S incursion into Lebanon after the kidnapping on
Wednesday of two Israeli soldiers by the militant group Hezbollah is far more
than another flare-up on a tense border. It must also be seen as a spinoff of a
general counterattack against American and Israeli power in the region by Iran
and Syria, operating through sub-state actors like Hezbollah and the
Palestinian organization Hamas.
If America and its Security Council partners are smart,
however, they may be able to use this crisis to further their security goals in
the Middle East, and to help Lebanon climb out of its political morass.
This is not to say that the cycle of attack and
retaliation between Hezbollah and Israel is merely a proxy war. The two sides have
long engaged in a conflict in southern Lebanon — albeit, since Israel’s pullout
in 2000, one mostly limited to a disputed territory known as the Shebaa Farms
and contained by unwritten rules. This week, however, Hezbollah transgressed
three political lines.
The first was its expansion of military operations
outside the Shebaa area. While Hezbollah has done this before — even killing
some Israeli troops — the latest operation was certain to be intolerable to an
Israeli government already dealing with the kidnapping of another soldier, Cpl.
Gilad Shalit, by Hamas in Gaza.
A second line that Hezbollah crossed was its evident
coordination of strategy with Hamas; this went well beyond its stated aim of
simply defending Lebanon and left Israel feeling it was fighting a war on two
fronts.
The third line crossed was domestic. By unilaterally
taking Lebanon into a conflict with Israel, Hezbollah sought to stage a coup
d’état against the anti-Syrian parliamentary and government majority, which
opposes the militant group’s adventurism.
Hezbollah holds seats in the 128-member Parliament but
has an uneasy relationship with the majority, which has been on the defensive
as Syria has tried to reassert control over Lebanon after its military
withdrawal last year. Hezbollah hoped to humiliate the anti-Syrian politicians
by forcing them to endorse the kidnappings and showing how little control the
government has over the party.
Israel wants Lebanon to pay an onerous price for its
ambiguity on Hezbollah: it has imposed an air and sea blockade and is launching
air attacks well into Lebanon, including several on the Beirut airport.
Pointedly, however, Israel has failed to mention the regional facet of the
crisis. Israeli officials have left Syria out of their condemnations, in
jarring contrast to the Bush administration’s statements that have rightly
highlighted Iranian and Syrian responsibility for Hezbollah’s behavior.
Iran, of course, has long bankrolled Hezbollah, and the
Israeli government said yesterday it feared the two kidnapped soldiers were
being taken to Tehran. But Syria is the nexus of regional instability, giving
shelter to several of the most intransigent Palestinian militants, transferring
arms to Hezbollah, and undermining Lebanon’s frail sovereignty.
Israel can brutalize Lebanon all it wants, but unless
something is done to stop Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, from exporting
instability to buttress his despotic regime, little will change.
Once the Israelis end their offensive, Hezbollah will
regroup and continue to hold Lebanon hostage through its militia, arguably the
most effective force in the country. Hamas leaders in Damascus will continue
derailing any negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. And Syria will
continue to eat away at Lebanese independence, reversing the gains of last year
when hundreds of thousands of Lebanese marched against Syrian hegemony.
It would be far smarter for Israel, and America, to
profit from Hezbollah’s having perhaps overplayed its hand. The popular mood here
is one of extreme anger that the group has provoked a conflict Lebanon cannot
win. The summer tourism season, a rare source of revenue for a country on the
financial ropes, has been ruined. Even Hezbollah’s core supporters, the Shiite
Muslims in the south, cannot be happy at seeing their towns and villages turned
again into a killing field.
What to do? While the United Nations has been ineffective
in its efforts toward Middle East peace, it may be the right body to intervene here,
if only because it has the cudgel of Security Council Resolution 1559, which
was approved in 2004 and, among other things, calls for Hezbollah’s
disarmament.
The five permanent Security Council members, perhaps at
this weekend’s Group of 8 meeting, should consider a larger initiative based on
the resolution that would include: a proposal for the gradual collection of
Hezbollah’s weapons; written guarantees by Israel that it will respect Lebanese
sovereignty and pull its forces out of the contested Lebanese land in the
Shebaa Farms; and the release of prisoners on both sides. Such a deal could
find support among Lebanon’s anti-Syrian politicians, would substantially
narrow Hezbollah’s ability to justify retaining its arms, and also send a
signal to Syria and particularly Iran that the region is not theirs for the
taking.
One important thing: No Lebanese government could
legitimately help to advance such a plan if Israel were to try to, as its army
chief of staff put it this week, “turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years.”
Israel must cease its attacks and let diplomacy take over.
*Michael Young is the opinion editor of The
Daily Star in Lebanon and a contributing editor at Reason magazine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/opinion/14young.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
GKronfli@aol.com Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:36:04 EDT
I think Michael Young is against Syria just for the
sake of it. Its unbelievable that he is unthinkingly reiterating the Zionist-USA
discredited mantra. Israel is out to destroy Arab countries so that it may romp
around the area at will dictating, killing, abducting, bombing etc. Mr. Young
conveniently forgets that Syria saved the Lebanese from themselves on at least
two occasions. What has Israel ever done for Lebanon, except destroy it. Perhaps
he is living in the wrong country. Maybe Tel Aviv would be more to his liking
than Beirut.
Sun, 16 Jul
2006 12:31:14 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From:
"Naim S. Mahlab" <nsm@videotron.ca>
Both,
Hizballah and Hamas, are proxies of Iran.
The Iranian
Mullahs chose to start the conflict just when the G-8 nations are meeting in
Russia, so as to divert attention from their own belligerence in continuing
their nuclear research and development.
Their
strategy will succeed only if the G-8 fall for this ruse.
I am coming
to the conclusion that the Israeli Palestinian conflict will not be resolved unless Uncle
Sam 'imposes' a settlement, by force of arms if necessary.
Both sides
appear to be saying to each other. 'I will not come to your funeral if you do
not come to mine.'
The
situation is bordering on the ridiculous. A solution must be found. The
refugees of both sides must be compensated and some modus vivendi is
established.