Does
Lebanon Have The Rigth
To Defend Itself ?
By Farzana Hassan-Shahid
19 August, 2006
Countercurrents.org
A
much-awaited ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has finally come
into effect and appears to be holding despite the fragile peace brokered
by the United Nations. After the month-long fighting in Lebanon it is
difficult to determine who the victors and the vanquished really are
in a war that has been described as asymmetrical.
Certainly there were many asymmetries in the war. The damage done to
Lebanon's infrastructure has far outweighed the destruction caused to
Israel by Hezbollah's Katyusha's. Other asymmetries appeared in the
rhetoric of the war itself, blatant among which was the constant reference
to Israel's right to defend itself. And while everyone agreed that Israel
had the right to defend itself form "unprovoked" aggression
by the Hezbollah, what was absent in the incessant discussion on the
war was the question on whether Lebanon had the right to defend its
borders from Israeli aggression?
The war was continually characterized as a conflict between Israel and
Hezbollah, that Israel was merely defending itself by targeting Hezbollah
strongholds causing damage to the lifeline of supplies from sponsor
nations Syria and Iran. At the close of the war the damage to Southern
Lebanon's infrastructure was estimated at $10 billion.
The night before the ceasefire, a mournful nation remembered its dead
by lighting a thousand candles in Beirut square-- eerie reminders of
the death and destruction heaped upon Lebanon's innocents. Even as the
candles flickered, the Israeli prime minister announced just before
the ceasefire that the time left before the ceasefire was the time to
"do as much damage as we can"
And why not, many asked? Israel and the US had announced that the moral
authority for Israel to go to war with Hezbollah was unquestionable
as it was merely defending itself. But defend itself with such offensive
ferocity? And why did the Lebanese population feel like this was a war
against them and not the Hezbollah alone? Moreover, did the Hezbollah's
act of kidnapping a couple of soldiers warrant the disproportionate
military action by the IDF? More importantly, how "unprovoked "
truly were Hezbollah's actions?
According to Sharat C. Lion in an article entitled "Chronology
of the Latest Crises in the Middle East "every significant military
action by a Palestinian or Lebanese militia was clearly in response
to desperate conditions imposed on Palestinians by Israel" The
kidnapping by Hezbollah of two soldiers according to the author was
in response to "the mounting carnage in Gaza, and the seizure of
much of the Palestinian government leadership"
The Hezbollah and Israel had previously engaged in border skirmishes
in which three Israeli soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped.
To the above border skirmishes Israel reacted with all-out assaults
on Southern Lebanon and Beirut from land air and sea, also blockading
the country which prevented much of the humanitarian aid from reaching
the Lebanese.
More damning evidence about Israel's motives came from Seymour Hersch
on Aug 14Th, 06. In an interview to CNN he stated that he had access
to inside information on the fact that Bush and Israel had preplanned
the war with Lebanon in an attempt to involve Iran as well, no matter
how small the provocation form the Hezbollah.
The question then which more appropriately needs to be asked is: Do
Israel's neighbors have a right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression?
Does Lebanon have the right to defend itself and why hasn't this right
been acknowledged by the world community at large?
Farzana Hassan-Shahid is a freelacne writer and host
of the Radio Program :Islam Faith and Culture.