Who
Is Winning?
By Uri Avnery
29 July, 2006
Gush Shalom
Q. Who is winning
this war?
On the 15th day of the war,
Hizbullah is functioning and fighting. That by itself will go down in
the annals of the Arab peoples as a shining victory.
When a featherweight boxer
faces a heavyweight and is still standing in the 15th round--that is
a victory, whatever the final outcome.
Q. Can Hizbullah
be pushed out of the border area?
The question is based on
a misunderstanding of the essence of Hizbullah.
Not by accident is the organization
call Hizb-Allah ("Party of Allah") and not Jeish-Allah ("Army
of Allah"). It is a political organization, with deep roots in
the Shiite population of South Lebanon. For all practical purposes,
it represents this community. The Shiites are 40% of the Lebanese population,
and together with the other Muslims they form the majority.
Hizbullah can be "moved"
only if the whole Shiite population is moved--an ethnic cleansing that
(I hope) no one is thinking about. After the war the population will
return to their towns and villages, and Hizbullah will continue to flourish.
Q. What would happen
if the Lebanese Army were deployed along the border?
That has been one of the
slogans of the Israeli government from the first moment. They will announce
this as the main victory. That is very convincing--for anyone who has
no idea about the complexities of Lebanon.
Anyone who was in Lebanon
in 1982 and saw the Lebanese Army in action knows that it is not a serious
army. Furthermore, many of its officers and soldiers are Shiites. Such
a force will not fight Hizbullah.
Its deployment in the South
would depend entirely on the agreement of Hizbullah--and that also applies
to every day it stays there.
Q. Would an international
force help?
Ditto. That is a slogan especially
tailored for diplomats, who look for an idea they can easily agree on.
It sounds nice, especially if one adds the word "robust".
What exactly is the robust
international force supposed to do?
It is proposed that it will
remove Hizbullah from the border area. Not by words--like the hapless
UNIFIL, that everyone ignored right from the beginning--but by force.
If the deployment of this
force were to take place with the agreement of both sides--Israel and
Hizbullah--alright. It may serve as a ladder for the Israeli government
to climb down from the tree it has climbed up.
But if the force is placed
there contrary to the will of Hizbullah, a guerilla war against it will
start. Will the international force stand up and fight in a place which
the mighty Israeli army fled with its tail between its legs?
For Israel, there will be
a special dilemma: what will happen if Hizbullah attacks Israel in spite
of the force? Will the Israeli army enter the area, risking a clash
with the international force? With German soldiers, for example?
Q. Olmert has said
that we will not negotiate with Syria. Is that practical?
So he said. He has said a
lot of things, and his tongue is still wagging.
Syria is a central player
in this field. No real settlement in Lebanon will succeed without the
participation--direct or indirect- of Syria.
True, Hizbullah was created
by us. When the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in 1982, the Shiites received
the soldiers with rice and sweets. They hoped that we would evict the
PLO forces, who were in control of the area. But when they realized
that our army was there to stay, they started a guerilla war that lasted
for 18 years. In this war, Hizbullah was born and grew, until it became
the strongest organization in all Lebanon.
But this would not have happened
without massive Syrian support. Syria wants to get back the Golan heights,
which have been officially annexed to Israel. Therefore, it is important
for the Syrians not to allow the Israelis any quiet. Since they do not
want to risk trouble on their own borders with Israel, they use Hizbullah
to cause trouble on Israel's border with Lebanon.
The Lebanese border will
not become quiet until we reach an agreement with Syria. That is to
say: until we give the Golan back.The alternativeis to start a war with
Syria, with its ballistic missiles, chemical and biological weapons
and an army that has proved itself. President Bush is pushing Israel
to do this, perhaps in order to divert attention from his fiascoes in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Q. How can one evaluate
the conduct of the military campaign?
Dan Halutz will not enter
the history books as one of the greatest captains of all time.
He pushed the government
into this war, partly in order to cover up two embarrassing military
failures: the Palestinian commando action in Kerem Shalom and the Hizbullah
action on the Lebanese border. No officer has been called to bear responsibility
for them. The ultimate responsibility rests, of course, with the chief-of-Staff.
Halutz, the first Chief-of-Staff
who rose through the ranks of the Air Force, was convinced that he could
finish it off by aerial bombardment, with the assistance of the artillery
and navy. He was vastly mistaken. Even after sowing havoc in Lebanon,
he did not succeed in vanquishing the opponent. Now he is compelled
to do the one thing that everybody was afraid of: sending large land
forces into the Lebanese quagmire.
On the 15th day of the war,
not one of the aims is any nearer to being achieved. As far as Halutz
is concerned, both as a strategist and as a commander, his marks are
close to zero.
Q. Have the civilians
at the head of the government proved themselves?
After the elections, many
people in Israel thought that a civilian era had begun, since both the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense are complete civilians, without
a military background. As it turns out, the opposite is the case.
History shows that political
functionaries who succeed strong leaders are capable of doing terrible
things. They want to prove that they, too, are strong leaders, that
they have guts, that they can wage war. Harry Truman , who replaced
Franklin Roosevelt, is responsible for what is perhaps the biggest war
crime in history--the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Anthony Eden, who succeeded Winston Churchill, started the foolish Suez
war, in collusion with France and Israel.
The Olmert government started
this war in shocking irresponsibility, without serious debate or deliberation.
They were afraid to oppose the demands of the Chief-of-Staff, afraid
to be branded as cowards.
Q. Olmert has promised
that after the war the situation in the region will be different from
what it was before. Is there a chance of this?
Absolutely. But the new situation
will be very much worse for us.
One of Hassan Nasrallah's
aims is to unite Shiites and Sunnis in a common fight against Israel.
One has to realize that for
centuries Sunnis and Shiites were mortal enemies. Many orthodox Sunnis
consider the Shiites heretics. By coming to the aid of the Palestinians,
who are Sunnis, Nasrallah hopes, among other aims, to forge a new alliance.
In the Middle East, a new
axis may be coming into being, one that includes Hizbullah, the Palestinians,
Syria, Iraq and Iran. Syria is a Sunni country. Iraq is now controlled
by the Shiites, who wholeheartedly support Hizbullah. But the Iraqi
Sunnis, who are waging a tough guerilla war against the Americans, also
support Hizbullah.
This bloc enjoys a wide popularity
among the masses throughout the Arab world, because of their fight against
the USA and Israel. The opposite bloc, which includes Saudi Arabia,
Egypt and Jordan, is losing popularity by the day. These regimes are
considered by the masses as mercenaries of the Americans and agents
of Israel. Mahmoud Abbas is strenuously trying to avoid being included
in this category.
Q. So what can be
done about this?
To put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, which causes ferment throughout the Middle East.
To draw Hamas out of this
hostile front, by negotiating with the elected Palestinian government.
To reach a settlement in
Lebanon. For it to last, this settlement must include Hizbullah and
Syria. This will oblige us to give the Golan back.
It should be remembered that
Ehud Barak had already agreed to that and almost signed a peace treaty,
similar to the one signed with Egypt, but unfortunately chickened out
at the last moment for fear of public opinion.