Howya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm?
July 26, 2006
Well, Condi has come and gone and the war in the north goes on. What is significant, though not at all surprising, is that the American Secretary of State arrived with no intentions of pressuring Israel into an immediate cease-fire with Hezbollah, nor did she give an American carte blanche to Israel in its prosecution of the war. It was, I believe, a tactical coup for Secretary Rice to arrange a “surprise” visit to Beirut prior to her stop-off in Jerusalem before traveling to Rome for the international conference on the crisis in Lebanon and Israel’s north. I emphasize the latter because most media reports describe the meeting as focusing on Lebanon. While it is true that the crux of the issue to be discussed will be the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, there will also be much talk about the suffering this war has imposed on Lebanon’s civilian population. I hope that those gathered in Rome will also take into account the suffering imposed upon Israeli civilians—more than a million in the north victimized by the incessant rocket barrages from Hezbollah. Israel will accept no decision to end the present crisis that does not include the neutralizing of Hezbollah’s ability to threaten the lives and welfare of Israeli citizens.
What is striking about the Rome conference is the absence of the key players in the conflict except for Lebanon itself. Israel’s absence, I would aver, is to its benefit. Were Israel to be a party in the face-to-face deliberations it is very likely that a consensus would develop for the immediate cessation of military actions by Israel. This pressure would be much more difficult for Israel to resist in Rome rather than as part of a negotiations package at a later date.
But, also “missing” at the table are both Syria and Iran the key backers of Hezbollah. It is important that neither be given a direct voice as this would give them the recognition and pivotal role that they both seek. Iran wants to establish itself as the clear leader of a pan-Muslim order imposed upon the Middle East by it cadres of jihadist forces. This is true not only as regards Hezbollah, but also vis a vis Hamas, and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons is part of its ambitions for Islamic hegemony over the entire Middle East. In this enterprise Syria serves as Iran’s junior partner.
That is precisely why it should not surprise anyone that the Arab governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and even Lebanon itself have not refrained from criticizing Hezbollah as a “state within a state,” that threatens Lebanon’s stability. The unprecedented tacit acceptance of Israel’s actions against Hezbollah heralds a new phase in the turmoils that have plagued the Middle East for generations. The established governments in the Middle East are just as threatened by Iran as is Israel.
Heretofore, Israel’s chief enemies were the confrontation states aligned along its borders. With the exception of Syria, none of the old guard confrontation states pose an immediate threat to Israel. There are peace accords with Egypt and Jordan that have stood the test of time and past crises. Saudi Arabia is in no position to pose a military threat (even in past conflicts, preferring to pay for others to fight rather than expose its own forces), and Lebanon would not present a problem were it not for the presence of Hezbollah (and, to a lesser extent the Palestinians) in its territory. That leaves only Syria—the toothless tiger—as a potential military threat to Israel.
Politically too, there have been major shifts in the Muslim world. Abdel Nasser’s goal of an Egyptian dominated United Arab Republic is gone now. So too, Syria’s ambitions for a greater Syria (including Lebanon, Israel and Iraq) are no more than a pipe dream, although this explains Syria’s involvement in the present crisis. Syria’s goals are national, not religious as Syria’s Baathist regime has secular-nationalistic roots.
What has replaced these previous pan-Arab visions is a new call for an Islamic Caliphate—this one based in Iran and spreading the ayatollah-brand of fundamentalism throughout the Middle East. In this new Islamic order non-Shiite Muslims are just as threatened as non-Muslims. “Iran’s war” is not about territory it is about ideology. That makes Syria’s siding with Iran bizarre, except that this coalition is tactically advantageous for both sides, though potentially strategically disastrous for Syria.
In Iran’s war there can be no “land for peace” compromises. Israel’s very existence as a non-Islamic state runs counter to Iran’s ideology. What President Ahmadinejad has been saying about wiping Israel off the map is not idle talk it is fundamental to Iran’s geo-political goals based on its religious principles. Hezbollah is the military finger of Iran’s hand. There can be no more compromise with Hezbollah than with Iran. Hezbollah doesn’t want more land it wants to eliminate Israel’s very existence.
And yet, the rationalization that Hezbollah uses to justify its own existence following Israel’s withdrawl from Lebanon in 1999 is that Israel did not withdraw from all of Lebanon. Hezbollah claims that Israel retained a ten square mile area bordered by Israel, Lebanon and Syria called the Shaba Farms (the area is called Har Dov in Hebrew). The United Nations, after exhaustive studies of area maps, determined that the area of the Shaba Farms was Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. Though Lebanon claims the Shaba Farms (giving Hezbollah its excuse that it continues to fight for the liberation of Lebanese territory occupied by Israel), Syria has never relinquished its claims—claims that have been consistently upheld by the United Nations.
Now there are rumblings that Hezbollah might consider a cease-fire if Israel released Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails and relinquished the strategically positioned Shaba Farms to Lebanese sovereignty. Israel is not prepared to meet either demand. However, the fact that Hezbollah is even raising such proposals seems to indicate that its forces have been significantly compromised in this war.
And so, we wait for the deliberations in Rome to see what develops. So far there has been little pressure on Israel to immediately and unilaterally end hostilities and such as there has been has been coming, in the main, from the streets and not the state houses. Meanwhile, one million people in the north of Israel have had their lives disrupted. About 70% are said to have fled to safer areas in the south, the remaining Israelis (those too poor, too ill, too old or whose jobs require them to stay) live each day in bomb shelters or safe rooms and keep their ears ever attuned to the sound of the sirens warning of a new rocket attack.
And still we pray for peace. There may be no negotiating with Hezbollah (and, by extrapolation Iran), but Israel would be making a grave mistake, I believe, if it assumes the same attitude regarding the Palestinians. There may not be a moderate faction in Hamas with whom to open dialogue, but Mahmud Abbas remains open to negotiations. Israel needs to separate the Palestinian issue from the war in the north though the links between Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are quite evident. Unfortunately there are many voices taking the opposite view equating the Palestinian issue and their aspirations for statehood and Hezbollah’s aim of destroying Israel and establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state in its stead. Now is the time to strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates while the world’s sympathies are against Hamas and Hezbollah. Let’s wait and see what happens…
Shalom from Jerusalem.
What is striking about the Rome conference is the absence of the key players in the conflict except for Lebanon itself. Israel’s absence, I would aver, is to its benefit. Were Israel to be a party in the face-to-face deliberations it is very likely that a consensus would develop for the immediate cessation of military actions by Israel. This pressure would be much more difficult for Israel to resist in Rome rather than as part of a negotiations package at a later date.
But, also “missing” at the table are both Syria and Iran the key backers of Hezbollah. It is important that neither be given a direct voice as this would give them the recognition and pivotal role that they both seek. Iran wants to establish itself as the clear leader of a pan-Muslim order imposed upon the Middle East by it cadres of jihadist forces. This is true not only as regards Hezbollah, but also vis a vis Hamas, and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons is part of its ambitions for Islamic hegemony over the entire Middle East. In this enterprise Syria serves as Iran’s junior partner.
That is precisely why it should not surprise anyone that the Arab governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and even Lebanon itself have not refrained from criticizing Hezbollah as a “state within a state,” that threatens Lebanon’s stability. The unprecedented tacit acceptance of Israel’s actions against Hezbollah heralds a new phase in the turmoils that have plagued the Middle East for generations. The established governments in the Middle East are just as threatened by Iran as is Israel.
Heretofore, Israel’s chief enemies were the confrontation states aligned along its borders. With the exception of Syria, none of the old guard confrontation states pose an immediate threat to Israel. There are peace accords with Egypt and Jordan that have stood the test of time and past crises. Saudi Arabia is in no position to pose a military threat (even in past conflicts, preferring to pay for others to fight rather than expose its own forces), and Lebanon would not present a problem were it not for the presence of Hezbollah (and, to a lesser extent the Palestinians) in its territory. That leaves only Syria—the toothless tiger—as a potential military threat to Israel.
Politically too, there have been major shifts in the Muslim world. Abdel Nasser’s goal of an Egyptian dominated United Arab Republic is gone now. So too, Syria’s ambitions for a greater Syria (including Lebanon, Israel and Iraq) are no more than a pipe dream, although this explains Syria’s involvement in the present crisis. Syria’s goals are national, not religious as Syria’s Baathist regime has secular-nationalistic roots.
What has replaced these previous pan-Arab visions is a new call for an Islamic Caliphate—this one based in Iran and spreading the ayatollah-brand of fundamentalism throughout the Middle East. In this new Islamic order non-Shiite Muslims are just as threatened as non-Muslims. “Iran’s war” is not about territory it is about ideology. That makes Syria’s siding with Iran bizarre, except that this coalition is tactically advantageous for both sides, though potentially strategically disastrous for Syria.
In Iran’s war there can be no “land for peace” compromises. Israel’s very existence as a non-Islamic state runs counter to Iran’s ideology. What President Ahmadinejad has been saying about wiping Israel off the map is not idle talk it is fundamental to Iran’s geo-political goals based on its religious principles. Hezbollah is the military finger of Iran’s hand. There can be no more compromise with Hezbollah than with Iran. Hezbollah doesn’t want more land it wants to eliminate Israel’s very existence.
And yet, the rationalization that Hezbollah uses to justify its own existence following Israel’s withdrawl from Lebanon in 1999 is that Israel did not withdraw from all of Lebanon. Hezbollah claims that Israel retained a ten square mile area bordered by Israel, Lebanon and Syria called the Shaba Farms (the area is called Har Dov in Hebrew). The United Nations, after exhaustive studies of area maps, determined that the area of the Shaba Farms was Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. Though Lebanon claims the Shaba Farms (giving Hezbollah its excuse that it continues to fight for the liberation of Lebanese territory occupied by Israel), Syria has never relinquished its claims—claims that have been consistently upheld by the United Nations.
Now there are rumblings that Hezbollah might consider a cease-fire if Israel released Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails and relinquished the strategically positioned Shaba Farms to Lebanese sovereignty. Israel is not prepared to meet either demand. However, the fact that Hezbollah is even raising such proposals seems to indicate that its forces have been significantly compromised in this war.
And so, we wait for the deliberations in Rome to see what develops. So far there has been little pressure on Israel to immediately and unilaterally end hostilities and such as there has been has been coming, in the main, from the streets and not the state houses. Meanwhile, one million people in the north of Israel have had their lives disrupted. About 70% are said to have fled to safer areas in the south, the remaining Israelis (those too poor, too ill, too old or whose jobs require them to stay) live each day in bomb shelters or safe rooms and keep their ears ever attuned to the sound of the sirens warning of a new rocket attack.
And still we pray for peace. There may be no negotiating with Hezbollah (and, by extrapolation Iran), but Israel would be making a grave mistake, I believe, if it assumes the same attitude regarding the Palestinians. There may not be a moderate faction in Hamas with whom to open dialogue, but Mahmud Abbas remains open to negotiations. Israel needs to separate the Palestinian issue from the war in the north though the links between Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran are quite evident. Unfortunately there are many voices taking the opposite view equating the Palestinian issue and their aspirations for statehood and Hezbollah’s aim of destroying Israel and establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state in its stead. Now is the time to strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates while the world’s sympathies are against Hamas and Hezbollah. Let’s wait and see what happens…
Shalom from Jerusalem.
posted by RSJD at 10:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home