20
August 2006
How to End the Mideast War
Michael Young and Saul Singer
Lebanese
journalist Michael Young and Israeli commentator Saul Singer were online
Tuesday, August 15, at noon ET to debate how best to deal with Hezbollah and
Iran and end the conflict in Lebanon.
The
transcript follows.
Michael
Young is the Opinion Editor and a columnist for Lebanon's The Daily Star
newspaper. He is also a contributing editor and contributor at Reason magazine,
where he writes bi-weekly articles.
Saul
Singer is Editorial Page Editor and author of the weekly column Interesting
Times for the Jerusalem Post . He is the author of
Confronting Jihad: Israel's Struggle and the World After 9/11
. Before moving to Israel from the Washington
area
in 1994, Mr. Singer served for ten years as an advisor on the personal and
committee staffs of the United States Congress, including the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, Senate Banking Committee, and Senator Connie Mack.
____________________
Saul
Singer: We are in a struggle between those who love freedom and life and those
who love dictatorship and death. As the Cedar Revolution demonstrated, the
majority of Lebanese and Israelis are on the same side of this fight; against
Hezbollah,
Syria, and Iran. I hope that the Lebanese people and government decide to act
based on their love for Lebanon rather than on hatred for Israel. The days
ahead are critical.
_______________________
Michael
Young: There is no doubt that Lebanon today is caught between contending
visions of what the state stands for: a more liberal vision, where economic
prosperity and stability is a primary goal; and another vision, backed by
Hezbollah, which places militancy, particularly against the United States and
Israel, at its heart. That said, what we saw in Lebanon most recently was only
partly a philosophical fight; it was a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran, and
the fact that Hezbollah is willing to advance Iranian interests against the
general consensus in Lebanon is very dangerous.
Saul
Singer: I think that Hezbollah's definitive demonstration that it placed Iran's
interests over Lebanon's could be one of the most important outcomes of this
war. The future will be determined by whether the Lebanese people are brave
enough to stand up to Hezbollah/Iran the way they stood up to Syria.
Michael,
do you think they will?
_______________________
David
Ignatius, PostGlobal: A big issue still outstanding in Lebanon is the one that
triggered the war in the first place--namely, capture and exchange of
prisoners. Won't the return of Israeli soldiers inevitably require negotiations
(direct or indirect) between Hezbollah and Israel? What will be the
consequences of such a process of indirect dialogue for each side?
Saul
Singer: Israel has held indirect negotiations with Hezbollah before, and it
will happen again on the prisoner issue. As much as Israel wants its captured
soldiers back, however, I don't see how it can trade convicted terrorists in
its prisons for them, except perhaps in exchange for information or bodies of
soldiers like Ron Arad, who has been missing in action since 1986.
Michael
Young: Indeed, the next phase will involve an exchange of prisoners, and Israel
has already declared its intention to move to that phase. However, this may
take time, since the Israelis don't want to make it seem that Hezbollah has
scored a victory. That said, both sides have an interest in their succeeding at
some stage, since Hezbollah wants its combatants back apparently captured by
Israel, and Israel wants its two soldiers back.
The
real question is what happens to one prisoner in particular: Samir Quntar, the
longest-serving Lebanese prisoner in Israel. His release has long been a
Hezbollah demand, though Quntar has nothing to do with the party. My suspicion
is that the Israelis will not release him, partly because he was condemned by
an Israeli court for a particularly heinous crime, partly because with the
leverage the Israelis have with the Hezbollah prisoners (assuming they do have
a substantial number, as they claim), they may not feel they have to give him
up.
_______________________
Lisbon,
Portugal: So, who really won? Although Israel did not recover their two
soldiers, it still seems almost comical to see Hezbullah celebrating victory on
top of their bombed-out buildings. They can't be serious.
Michael
Young: Yes, I agree. Hezbollah at best won a tactical victory in standing its
ground. However, its rocket deterrent has effectively been neutralized for
years, because Shiite civilians cannot soon be put through such trauma again;
Hezbollah's skills were on display in a fight that was largely meaningless, and
you can be assured that next time the Israelis will come better prepared; the
vague Lebanese consensus behind the party, never very strong anyway, has been
shattered, so that Hezbollah cannot be as adventurist in the future as it was
in the past; Arab hostility to Hezbollah has escalated, and was on display
during the recent diplomacy; and for the foreseeable future Hezbollah will have
to behave more like the Salvation Army than a "resistance" because of
the hundreds of thousands of Shiites it must take care of.
For
all these reasons and more, I don't see this as a victory for Hizbullah, and
I'm not even mentioning the billions of dollars of losses Lebanon must face. In
its calculations, strangely, Hezbollah never seemed to factor in the losses
outside the Shiite community.
Saul
Singer: I hope Israelis and our friends in the US will read Michael's answer
above. We're so busy flagellating ourselves that we fail to see what has
happened to the other side. I just participated in a symposium on the question
on National Review Online and, while I called it a "missed
opportunity," all my colleagues seemed to think it was an unmitigated
disaster.
I'm
actually concerned that our failure to appreciate what we have achieved could
mean that we don't work hard enough to win the peace (because we think it is
unwinnable), which is as important as winning the war.
_______________________
Savannah,
Georgia: Michael Young,
How
can you, or any other Lebanese honestly assess the results of Hezbullah's
actions which have resulted in the devastation of your country without being at
risk of getting killed by Hezbullah. i.e. if critical
of Hezbullah, don't you and all citizens of Lebanon face potential execution by
the very forces claiming "victory"?
Michael
Young: There has been criticism of Hezbollah, and one of the reasons the party
has been so keen to declare victory is to better conceal the devastation their
actions have brought on Lebanon. We are not at a stage where it is risking
one's life to criticize the war, at least I hope not, though certainly there
are many who do fear to openly go after Hezbollah publicly.
_______________________
Jerusalem
Israel: question to Michael Young: Do you think that the government of Lebanon
now use this window of opportunity to take sovereign control of the south of
your country, expel the Hizbollah militias and create a peaceful border with
Israel? and....How can we Israelis let the people of
Lebanon know that we wish for a safe prosperous Lebanon free from
Syrian/Iranian control, with secure friendly borders between us?
Michael
Young: The Lebanese government has no capacity to forcibly remove Hezbollah
from the south, but it can take a stronger position on the party's clear
violation of Resolution 1701. At the end of the day, by allowing Hezbollah to
maintain its arms south of the Litani (if that comes to pass), all the
government is doing is ensuring conflict will resume in the future, and that an
international force will enter Lebanon at a disadvantage. He doesn't want to
confront Hezbollah, but that's a formula for permanent instability.
Saul
Singer: I think two things have to happen to give the Lebanese government the
backbone it needs to take on Hezbollah: 1) a populardemonstration that most
Lebanese fear the consequences of a resurgent Hezbollah and the wars that will
bring than they do a civil war and 2) a tougher international stance against
Hezbollah, starting with the EU putting it on the
terrorist list if it does not disarm.
_______________________
Nashville,
TN.: What is your advice on achieving a permanent solution, not just a
temporary cease fire? Will it take a few generations to decide that peace is
better and living with respect of each other is best, or can there be a general
acceptance of peace within the current generation? If so, how can that be
achieved?
Michael
Young: I'm very pessimistic about achieving a permanent solution in south Lebanon.
Hezbollah won't disarm, and its adversaries in Lebanon are too frightened of
provoking a civil war to challenge the party by demanding more forcefully that
it bend to the national consensus and surrender its weapons. This is an
impossible situation, and one bound to lead to more violence in the future.
Saul
Singer: A permanent solution ultimately means dealing with the root cause of
the problem, namely Syria and Iran. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that
supporting proxy terrorist armies is a sanctionable international offense. The
war against terrorism is not serious so long as states like Iran and Syria can
support terrorism with impunity.
_______________________
New
York NY: Given Iran's role in this crisis and its nuclear ambitions, is there
any serious prospect in the near term of a preemptive strike by Israel against
Iran?
Michael
Young: I think it much more likely that military action against Iran will come
from the United States. That said, Israel's inability to decisively win in Lebanon
using air power will, I think, force American planners to rethink an air
power-driven attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. If tactical nuclear
weapons have been ruled out, as we have heard, and air power can't do much,
that means the U.S. must think of putting ground troops in Iran, even if for a
short
time.
Saul
Singer: Israel will only make a pre-emptive strike against Iran as a last
resort. But the point when this will have to be considered is before Iran has a
nuclear weapon, not after.
If
Israel is forced to do this, it will mean that the US and Europe, which are as
threatened by Iran's growing power as Israel, have failed miserably. If the
full economic and diplomatic power of the West is brought to bear on Iran,
including support for the Iranian people against their government, military
action is still avoidable.
_______________________
Oslo,
Norway: There has been an international force involved in this conflict for
almost 30 years. Why does anyone believe this time it will be different? Especially
when the French and Lebanese admit they will not disarm the terrorists?
Saul
Singer: The international force is not the critical variable; the position of
the Lebanese people and government is. If the government feels, due to a
combination of international and popular pressure, that it must disarm
Hezbollah, then an international force can help at the margins. If the Lebanese
will is not there, the international force will not fill that gap.
Michael
Young: I agree with Saul, but one should add that the Lebanese government is
functioning under severe constraints. No one wants criticism of Hezbollah to
degenerate into civil war. I argued elsewhere that this should not prevent the
Siniora government from being responsible, even if it means clashing with
Hezbollah. But the strategy must be finely tuned with Shiite political actors,
such as the parliament speaker, Nabih Berri, to avoid it spinning out of
control I'd like to add that the international force must and can be used
intelligently to contain Hizbullah. The force, an expanded version of the
present UNIFIL force in the south, can, if it provides a sense of security to
the inhabitants of the south, weaken Hizbollah's argument that it alone can
provide security from Israel. This aim must shape the mandate and behavior of
the force. The idea of making it a robust force is useful, but under no
circumstances must it be perceived as a hostile force (and Hezbollah will try
to depict it as such). On the contrary, its success must come from good
relations with the inhabitants of the south, particularly Shiites.
_______________________
Jerusalem:
Do Syria and Iran now believe that they can defeat Israel? Will the UN act now
against Iran?
Michael
Young: I think that Syrian President Bashar Assad's claim that Syria would
liberate the Golan was merely an effort to cover for the fact that his regime
has been wholly ineffective when it comes to fighting Israel, while a mere
Lebanese militia managed to score some points against it.
Syria
won't liberate the Golan by force of arms because Assad can't risk losing his
regime; nor can he negotiate a return of the territory, because his regime
could not go through with talks that would almost certainly lead to a worse
deal than the one his father rejected in 2000. What Assad wants is a process
that can protect him for a time from the U.S., one that will pay him dividends,
but which otherwise will never come to fruition.
As
a friend of mine put it, peace with Israel would mean the end of the
Alawitedominated security order in Syria. It would be political suicide for
Assad.
Saul
Singer: I generally agree with Michael regarding Syria. Assad knows Israel
would wipe out most of his tanks, aircraft, and missiles in a minute if it came
to war. Whether the UN will act against Iran is the pivotal question, and that
depends on the US taking the lead, since we've about come to the end of lowest
common denominator diplomacy with Europe.
_______________________
Bala
Cynwyd, PA: How do the continuing threat to Israel from Hezbollah and Iranian
missiles, and the inability of the IDF to remove the threat, affect the
viability of Israel's long term strategic posture?
Saul
Singer: Israel did not win the war decisively but there is a chance, if the
international community acts correctly, to win the peace. This means
sanctioning Iran and Syria for supporting Hezbollah, and keeping the pressure
on the Lebanese government to do what it wishes it could do: disarm Hezbollah.
But even more important for Israel's strategic posture and the future of the
free world is whether we treat this whole war as a huge wake up call on the
need to deal with Iran.
_______________________
Wisconsin,
USA: Has not this war exposed serious deficiencies within IDF at the command
level? From my vantage point it looked as if flawed strategic assumption
combined with tactical complacency to produce a war that was not well fought,
or at least not well commanded, from the Israeli side. Do Israelis share this
assessment, and if so how will they expect action on it?
Saul
Singer: There is a lot of talk here about setting up a commission of inquiry to
examine both the political and military echelons. The sense is that Israel was
not prepared to fight this war, and air power should have been supplemented by
ground forces much earlier.
The
problem was partly one of expectations. Hezbollah was a dug-in, trained,
well-equipped Iranian division fighting on its own territory. Despite this it
had many more losses than Israel -- about 5 to 1. But compared to previous
Arab- Israeli wars, and compared to unrealistic expectations that Israel could
quickly destroy Hezbollah, the enemy did well. Also, since we love life and
Hezbollah loves death, losses hurt us more.
_______________________
Austin,
Texas: The President in his latest press conference used 9/11, terrorism and
Hezbollah in one sentence. I'm confused. Is Hezbollah an exporter of Terrorism
tactics to the US, or is it just focused on Lebanon and Israel?
Saul
Singer: Yes, Hezbollah has killed hundreds of Americans, and it has carried out
attacks outside of Lebanon. The US State Department puts out an annual report
on global terrorism that you can read online. You might also read the official
9/11 Commission Report, which notes that Hezbollah has trained al- Qaeda
terrorists. Hezbollah is the international terror arm of Iran more than it is a
Lebanese organization.
_______________________
Princeton,
NJ: Both the Post and the NY Times had articles this weekend about rich young
westernized people in Lebanon (Post) and Syria (Times) who were supporters of
the West or non-political before the invasion of Lebanon. Now they are all
fervent fans of Hezbollah. Since these are the people we hope will be the
future leaders of their country, how can this be good for Israel?
Michael
Young: I'm not sure that in Lebanon this is widespread, though in Syria it
might be, and I've heard evidence to this effect. I find it hard to believe
that a nightly partygoer will suddenly embrace the stern canon of Hezbollah.
More likely, this reflects hostility to Israel and temporary admiration for a
group that fought effectively against the Israelis in south Lebanon. But that
will soon evaporate, nor do I see that attitude among the middle class Lebanese
I talk to.
Quite
the contrary.
But
one thing is true: Hezbollah's Shiite supporters come from all social classes,
including secular partygoers. Hezbollah is more than a paramilitary group or
party, it is for now the embodiment of Shiite success and affirmation. any Shiites are proud of how the party has come to be
powerful and effective, perhaps more so than the Lebanese state.
Saul
Singer: Michael, I wonder how many Shiites are proud of Hezbollah's
effectiveness and how many resent its exploitation of Lebanon on behalf of
extreme or foreign interests. I don't know the answer, but I think it is
important for Lebanon's future.
_______________________
DC:
The US gives Israel about 9 billion dollars of free
money every year. Shouldn't the US require that some of these monies be set
aside by Israel to help rebuild Lebanon's infrastructure that Israel destroyed?
Saul
Singer: No, because that would imply that Israel's fight against Hezbollah was
illegitimate, and that Lebanon is not culpable for treating Hezbollah as a
legitimate "resistance" organization long after Israel had completely
withdrawn from Lebanon.
Saul
Singer: By the way, the 9 billion figure is wrong.
It's about 2 billion a year, most of which goes back to the US to buy things
for the Israeli military.
_______________________
Charlottesville,
VA: Any lasting solution to violence in the Middle East must start by
acknowledging that a grave injustice was committed against most of the
inhabitants of Palestine in 1948, that that injustice still has living victims,
either direct or indirect, and that it must be redressed. Any real solution
must –startwith this. Do you agree?
Michael
Young: Yes I agree, but at this stage we really need to quickly get beyond that
stage. If the principle of Arab history is that we need to constantly revisit the
tragedy of 1948, then we won't get very far.
My
own view is that both Palestinians and Israelis are pursuing mirages in their
ideal visions of a final settlement. Israel cannot resolve its Palestinian
problem unilaterally; Palestinians cannot keep demanding a "right of
return" for all refugees, and we can go on and on. It seems to me as if
the history of those two peoples is often just a long list of failures on
either side to reach solutions that seek to avoid addressing the fundamentals of
their mutual antagonism. When those imperfect solutions run out and they have
to face the inevitable, perhaps they will come to an agreement. I'm not holding
my breath, though.
Saul
Singer: A lasting solution begins with acknowledging the fundamental problem
which produced the refugees in the first place: the Arab war against Israel's
existence. Were it not for that war, Jews and Arabs could live together in this
land (as they do, there are Arab members elected to Israel's parliament, the
Knesset).
_______________________
Sun
Prairie, WI: What do you think of the position of Mr. Siniora and his
government relative to Hezbollah? It has appeared to me that Siniora has
against long odds gained a certain amount of strength -- or if not strength at
least prominence -- within Lebanese politics during the last few weeks. As time
goes by is he more likely to be a spokesman for Hezbollah, a problem for
Hezbollah, or something in between?
Michael
Young: I think that Siniora maneuvered skillfully at the outset of the war,
however he is close to reaching a situation where Lebanon's implementation of
Resolution 1701 will go against the spirit of that resolution. How so?
According to news today, a compromise deal is being worked out where Hezbollah
will be able to keep its weapons in south Lebanon, and naturally its
combatants, as they hail from the region. This is a formula for problems down
the road. Siniora must take a stronger position on Hezbollah's weapons south of
the Litani, otherwise he risks losing his credibility at the United Nations.
That won't help him in the future, but it will strengthen Hezbollah, which is
waiting for any chance to weaken Siniora.
Saul
Singer: Understandably, Siniora is trying to straddle a fence between Hezbollah
and the international community. He knows that letting Hezbollah rebuild would
be a disaster for Lebanon, but he fears for his own power, I suspect. The way
the West can help him is by being demanding of him, so when he acts against
Hezbollah he can say, in part, we have no choice, the international community
made him do it.
_______________________
Caracas,
Venezuela: What will now happen to the many Christian Lebanese, who have been
living in Israel to avoid persecution from Hezbollah? Will they now return to
Lebanon or do they still fear reprisals from the terrorists in
Lebanon?
Michael
Young: They will almost certainly not return to Lebanon, since Hezbollah's
influence in the border area will remain strong. But perhaps that question
should be addressed to Michel Aoun. In a document he signed with Hezbollah
several months ago, he promised to discuss this very matter with the party.
Nothing has been heard on the matter since, which suggests to me that Aoun is
either not making this a priority, or Hezbollah is blowing him off.
_______________________
Washington,
DC: I am interested by the implications of Mr. Young's point that the recent
fighting was a proxy war between Iran and the U.S., and by Mr. Singer's
question, whether Lebanon's people will be able to assert themselves against
Hezbollah, the way they did against Syria. Lebanon's future is of course for
its people to decide, but there is a role for the US and other countries to
help create the conditions for that to occur. To what extent do European
countries and Arab countries realize this? And if they don't, what hope is
there for Lebanon's future and for other democrats in the Arab world?
Michael
Young: On Iran, I will take the extreme position and say that its present
support for Hezbollah comes with a hefty dose of indifference to how this might
destroy Lebanon's delicately-balanced sectarian system. You have a regime of
true believers in Tehran who are also very much aware that the U.S. is likely
to attack them in the coming two years. If Hezbollah can act as a barrier to
that, even for a short time, then the Iranians will use it, regardless of what
happens to Lebanese democracy. Hezbollah is willing to play along, and that's
what makes the party so utterly dangerous to Lebanon's imperfect but subtle
compromise system.
_______________________
Geneva,
Switzerland: We have heard very little of protest within Lebanon against
Hezbollah in the course of this conflict. How widespread is support for
Hezbollah within Lebanon? You speak of the Lebanese people and government being
"brave enough" to take action against Hezbollah. But do most Lebanese
actually fear retaliation from Hezbollah, or is Hezbollah a broad-based
movement with popular support within the country? To what extent is the
pressure for anti- Hezbollah sentiments within Lebanon reflective of actual
Lebanese opinion rather than US objectives?
Michael
Young: There has been criticism of Hezbollah in Lebanon, privately much more
than publicly, because that would supposedly be unbecoming in the midst of a
war. Yes, there is a fear of retaliation, certainly, and when I say "brave
enough" let me be clear: there is a tendency here to avoid all fights with
the party, though the party has no qualms about picking fights with its
political adversaries. The government, and Siniora in particular, must take a
clear position on Resolution 1701 and say that Hezbollah's arms south of the
Litani are a violation of the resolution. Otherwise it is the government that
will lose its
credibility vis-a-vis the international community. Why
should the government pay a heavy price for Hezbollah's unwillingness to
respect an international agreement?
_______________________
Michael
Young: I would like to thank all those who posted questions, with apologies to
those whom I was unable to answer.
My
final thought is that the weeks and months ahead are worrying ones. The end of
hostilities in Lebanon has in no way solved the fundamental problem in
south Lebanon. What we have today is a
temporary truce, one whose length will be
determined by a number of factors: first, Hezbollah's reluctance to again put its
Shiite coreligionists through a ring of fire by picking a fight with Israel.
Second, Iranian imperatives, which will be determined by the conflict with the
U.S. The latter two constraints may clash, by the way, inasmuch as Hezbollah
may have to come to Iran's defense at some stage, while knowing that it would
spell further disaster for the Shiites.
My
greatest worry, however, is what happens to the domestic Lebanese consensus if
Hezbollah continues to insist on keeping its arms. This will lead to growing
domestic resentment, and that could trigger a civil war. Most disappointing is
that Hezbollah, because it has its eye firmly on Iran, will not realize the
danger until its too late.
Thanks
_______________________
Saul
Singer: I also enjoyed this discussion, and hope that everyone found it
informative.
My
concern is the tendency to see the battles in the current global conflict in
isolation, rather than connecting the dots. One of the most important results
of this battle may be that it revealed that Israel struggle is really about
existence, not occupation, and that it is really with the jihadis of the Muslim
world led by Iran, not an argument with the Palestinians over a two-state
solution (which Israel supports and the jihadis in Hamas don't).
Iran
must be defeated for the situation in Israel, Lebanon, among Palestinians, in
Iraq, and even terror threats like the one in London, to improve. Beating the
jihad against us is not just, or mainly, about catching individual terrorists;
it is about sucking the air of out of the jihad's quest for power by steadily
reducing the number of states where it holds power.
There
is only one left that counts, and that's Iran. That's where we must win.
washingtonpost.com
GKronfli@aol.com
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 07:48:10 EDT
It is very disappointing and
disheartening to see Michael Young being meekly subservient to the Israelis and
the Israeli point of view, in some cases even more so than them. Whether
Michael Young or his new Israeli friends admit it or not, the Israelis have
suffered a massive setback, not least of all in propaganda terms. Their
standing in the International community is the lowest it has ever been, even
among those who previously supported Israel, including a substantial number of
Jews. Even their two most ardent supporters, Bush and Condi are nowhere to be
seen or heard. They obviously do not want to be associated with failure. Instead
of all the bombing, killing and wanton destruction of Lebanon, all the Israelis
had to do was negotiate with Hizbullah and get their men back. Not only have
they not recovered the two abducted soldiers, but they will now have to
negotiate with Hizbullah from a weaker position, and probably pay a higher
price for them. Unless of course the real Israeli agenda was to destroy Lebanon
and its infrastructure and cause civil strife and unrest. In which case it is
incumbent on Michael Young not to encourage them, and to show solidarity with
his fellow Lebanese.