A
Turning Point In History
By Dan Lieberman
20 September, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Debates
concerning the causes and consequences of the war between Israel and
Hezbollah have obscured the exact nature and deep meaning of the conflict.
The war might prove to be a turning point in world history.
Who started the War?
Without seeking international
support to free its abducted soldiers, and immediately after a military
excursion into Lebanon failed to locate its captured soldiers, Israel
had its navy blockade Lebanon and had its air force bomb several targets,
including Beirut's airport and Hezbollah's headquarters in southern
Beirut. More than twenty four hours after these attacks, Hezbollah fired
long range rockets into Israel.
By killing several Israeli
soldiers and abducting two of them, while firing mortars at the Israel
town of Shlomi (that did little damage), Hezbollah started an unjustified
skirmish; no doubt about that. However, Israel, after learning it could
not use a ground campaign to retrieve its military personnel, escalated
hostilities that could have and should have been contained, and started
a pulverizing war. Israel’s initial strategy resembled NATO's
war against Yugoslavia, in which NATO used aerial warfare to punish
Yugoslavia, which lacked adequate defenses against guided missiles launched
from airplanes. No need to use troops and no need to occupy terrain.
Hezbollah started a low-level conflict and Israel propelled the skirmish
into a war.
What were the Strategies
in the Attacks?
Hezbollah initially pursued
its usual strategy in an attempt to fulfill its usual purposes. The
militant Lebanese Shi'ite organization continued its harassment of Israel
with anticipation of increasing its prestige by forcing Israel to negotiate.
The “Party of God” expected to receive Israel’s maps
of mined territory in Lebanon, a prisoner exchange and international
recognition of its claim to ownership of the Sheeba farms.
This strategy had one difference
from previous operations. Hezbollah mentioned the Palestinian conflict
in its arguments and referred to Palestinian prisoners in Israel’s
prisons. Although not proven, Hezbollah must have hoped to combine its
strategy with those of the Palestinians and make it one Moslem effort
against Israel’s encroachments into Arab territories and Jerusalem.
Israel had one simple short
term strategy: free its soldiers without negotiations and concessions!
Don’t help Hezbollah to become more recognized. Get the soldiers
out and drop the matter. Its strategy failed.
The short term objectives
of both contestants faded fast and exposed their long term objectives.
The Shi'ite Islamist organization
proceeded with its ultimate strategy – the use of terror bombing
to force a truce and also to motivate Jews to leave Israel. Rocket attacks,
as another terror weapon, succeeded. Israel had only 42 civilian casualties,
not much more than two suicide bombings, but the rockets appeared more
ominous. Immigration to Israel has been slowing but now it might be
halted. An average of 25,000 Israelis leave their nation yearly and
the emigration from Israel might increase. Recent figures from the Jerusalem
Institute for Israel Studies show that: “Some 313,000 Jews have
left Jerusalem over the last 25 years, 105,000 more than those who moved
to the capital during the same period.”
Israel derived its long-term
strategy from the failures of earlier experiences. Israel learned from
previous occupations that it lacks sufficient resources to occupy hostile
lands. Its new policy has endeavored to control antagonists by other
means. Examine Israel’s previous occupations in Lebanon and Gaza,
and it becomes obvious that Israel only removed its soldiers. It still
controls Lebanon and Gaza air space and shipping lanes, engages in targeted
assassinations in both areas and is able to enter Gaza with minimal
interference.
Israel noted that accession
to power by a radical Muslim group can initiate sectarian strife. Israel
succeeded in stimulating several weeks of sectarian warfare between
Hamas and Fatah. It modeled its new strategy from that experience and
from observations of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. By generating sectarian
strife, Israel could have its antagonists destroy one another and reduce
their ability of confrontation. If the strategy, which has partially
succeeded in Palestine, could succeed in Lebanon, then it is probable
that Israel would have applied the same strategy in Syria and Iran.
Nevertheless, despite bombing mainly Shi’ite neighborhoods and
saturating Christian neighborhoods with propaganda which blamed Hezbollah
for the war and for the havoc committed upon the Lebanese people and
which also urged the Christian population to engage the militant Islamic
party, the sectarian warfare strategy failed.
What were the Successes
and Failures?
Hezbollah’s power
was greatly exaggerated. Except for the intense rocket barrage, Hezbollah
was more smoke than fire, Hezbollah didn’t have the power to create
any offensive and deter Israel’s air and sea power from daily
destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure. Anti-tank missiles stopped
Israel’s tanks and that effort, coupled with world opinion turning
against Israel, prevented Hezbollah’s defeat – Hezbollah’s
success was not victory; it was survival.
Israel took the offensive.
Its military tried to destroy Hezbollah’s ability to attack Israel
again and attempted to reduce Lebanon to an impotent state. However,
ground troops, as they worked their way into southern Lebanon, learned
that ultimate victory, which was defined as destruction of Hezbollah,
could not be achieved without massive destruction of the Lebanese population
and Lebanon’s infrastructure. By not exhibiting a winning offensive
that accomplished objectives, observers proclaimed Israel to be a loser.
Since there are those who like winners and despise losers, Israel lost
some of its previous support.
Israel lost the public relations
war. From the images on the TV screens, the world perceived a different
Israel – a highly aggressive and non-compromising Israel that
uses excessive power with diminished regard for civilian life. Particularly
disturbing was a missile attack on a convoy containing Lebanese families
fleeing the village of Marwahin, close to the Israeli border. Israel
warned the villagers to evacuate and although the villagers proceeded
on the only available road, Israeli warplanes bombed them and killed
16 persons. .
Hezbollah deserved criticism
for its rocket attacks on Israeli cities. However, the barrages of 100-200
pound rockets caused minimal damage and served to emphasize the excessive
damage caused by Israel’s 1000-2000 pound guided missiles. To
compensate for its aggressive actions, Israel tried to arouse hostility
against Hezbollah by accusing the Lebanese organization of operating
rocket launchers in heavily populated areas and intentionally inviting
reprisals that would inflict harm on civilians. The accusations damaged
Israel’s credibility. An example of a pro-Israel statement:
The IDF, as has been well
publicized, warned the citizens of Lebanon of impending attacks and
did everything in its power to avoid the loss of civilian life. Hezbollah,
in contrast, operates from civilian areas and uses Lebanese civilians
as shields while firing missiles at Israel’s cities. It does this
knowing that in order to protect its own citizens, Israel will be forced
to endanger the lives of Lebanese civilians, and the result will inevitably
be to increase civilian deaths, no matter how precise Israel’s
weaponry. And these deaths in turn will be used to ratchet up the violence
and hate
(1) Warnings of some attacks
didn't relieve accusations of criminal actions by Israel due to unwarranted
attacks on bridges, roads, power plants and entire neighborhoods in
Beirut
(2) Israeli pilots didn’t
supply photographs of rocket launchers being housed in populated areas.
(3) Non-biased reports from
those who surveyed areas after Israeli bombings didn’t disclose
rocket launchers.
(4) Long-distance multiple
rocket launchers cannot operate in populated areas. They need to fire
rockets from areas where there are no obstructions. They are usually
stationed in fields and hidden by foliage.
(5) Israel showed little
concern for its own population by not agreeing to a truce at an earlier
time and by engaging in a last day and meaningless offensive action
that resulted in the deaths of seventeen Israeli soldiers.
Perceptions after the truce:
A different Hezbollah was perceived; a well-organized and social-minded
institution that had support from the Lebanese people and quickly assisted
in relief programs without prejudice. Previous perceptions of Israel
as a defenseless and embattled state were modified. Israel lost its
moral ground.
Israel’s citizens
became exhausted with war. For Israel, war has become endless. The endless
wars solve immediate problems and create new problems. Wherever Israel
goes it meets enemies. Saddam Hussein is gone, and now Iran, a major
antagonist, has an almost direct path thorough Iraq to Syria and to
Israel. The new Israeli population does not have Zionist idealists but
are persons, mainly Russians, who came to Israel for economic opportunities.
Their principal interest is comfortable living. They don’t want
to sit in their living rooms, and while watching television or listening
to music, suddenly experience a Katyusha rocket fall in their lap. They
can easily leave, go back to the old country, which now has increased
opportunities, or go to another country. They have bags and can travel.
The United States lost prestige.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice reluctantly traveled with her fashion
show and accomplished what she promised the U.S. would not do –
a ceasefire without guarantees of Hezbollah’s destruction. By
approving on day thirty-two what could have been achieved on day two
and, if so, saved lives, the U.S. must have alienated international
bodies and lost trust from much of the world.
A Turning Point in
History
A number of established
concepts that had moved the world in the last decades were destroyed.
Other concepts that will move the world in the future were established.
A powerful and seemingly
unimpeded movement, that expanded a Zionist dream to the establishment
of a state and succeeded in rapid growth in size and population, has
been halted. This could be the end of the Zionist dream; a decisive
moment in history.
Lack of victory forces Israel
to rework its military and reinvigorate an angry population before embarking
on another aggressive action. Israel cannot afford another non-victory.
Israel now has no strategy to overcome Syria. If it replaces Bashar
Al-Assad’s government, Israel will face Hezbollahs in Syria and
Lebanon. Israel can bomb Iran nuclear installations, but if Iran, with
a population of 70 million and a vast area, is able to retaliate with
missiles, the smaller Israel will not easily survive. Israel has a dilemma
– the time to challenge the enemy is when a nation has a large
military advantage – but it might be a fatal victory. The Palestinians
have offered a truce, and back channels will be used to lessen tensions.
Israel needs to rest and devise a new strategy. The Middle East, outside
of Iraq and Palestine, will probably become less threatening.
The concept of preemptive
war, pioneered by Israel and adopted by the U.S., has proven to be a
failure. It has been shown in Iraq and Lebanon that preemptive war can
only succeed if the enemy is totally destroyed and if the conditions
that created the antagonisms are totally suppressed and then replaced.
The arguments between western
nations and Islam cannot be resolved by force. In Lebanon, an addition
to that of Iraq, Islam has displayed elements that are prepared to sacrifice
everything, human and material, to prevent encroachments upon their
lives. Prevention of mutual destruction of east and west is a choice
between genocide and compromise.
The notion that a major
military power can be provoked into war by an infraction upon their
psyche without a major infraction upon their territory has alarmed other
nations. Only the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction can save
the weak from the strong. The war will stimulate a new and more aggressive
arms race.
Israel’s proposition
that the release of a few soldiers is worth more than the destruction
of a nation and massive killings of people, and its targeting of Shi’ite
populations, tarnished its image and branded it as a megalomaniac and
racist state. Israel lost the trust of a part of the world that previously
supported it. The European Union, in particular, has finally displayed
incipient movements geared to prevent Israel and the United States from
shaping the Middle East to their own designs. The EU will work more
independently to secure an equitable Middle East peace.
Nations will be reluctant
to depend on the U.S. The U.S. demonstrated that it is not a positive
force for world peace. Unfortunately, as a result, countries might once
again form blocs, similar to those before WWI, and make defense pacts
in which an attack on one means an attack on all.
More ominous is that Israel
still has the nuclear option and could use it to prevent the end of
the Zionist dream.
Dan Lieberman
is the Editor of Alternative Insight, a monthly web based newsletter,
http://www.alternativeinsight.com.
Freelance writer of many articles on the Middle East conflict
[email protected]