• Home
• /
• Opinion

Look beyond Lebanon

Israel’s disproportionate use of force, the collective punishment of the Lebanese people and destruction of the country’s infrastructure cannot merely be a reaction to the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. The soldiers were abducted in a bid to facilitate swapping of Lebanese hostages in Israeli prisons. In targeting Lebanon, Israel is asserting that Arabs would never be able to gain concessions from the Jewish state by using force, and definitely not after former Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided to withdraw from south Lebanon in 2000.

Hezbollah emerged as a resistance movement in the wake of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, but formally declared itself as an organisation in 1985. The movement emerged at a time when Lebanon was visibly weak and indecisive. Despite the Syrian and Iranian backing, Hezbollah largely maintained its independence. Its weapons were only used in self defence as well as in the defense of the Lebanese people and territories.

Hezbollah is remembered for its numerous achievements, the greatest being the defeat of the Israeli forces in south Lebanon. The organisation not only succeeded in routing the Israeli forces after 18 years of occupation, but also succeeded in striking numerous prisoner exchange deals.

However, the current war erupted under totally different circumstances compared to those that prevailed during the liberation war in south Lebanon. A sequence of events that preceded this war included the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, a tragic event that prompted the United Nations Security Council to pass Resolution 1559, calling for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon and disarmament of Hezbollah. The resolution also demanded that Hezbollah hand over the border policing duties in the south to the Lebanese armed forces.

Judging from its ongoing operations in Palestine and Lebanon, it is evident that Israel is focused on destroying any form of internal and external resistance. In doing so, it tends to exploit the explosive and often turbulent situation in the region. Israel also seems to have been emboldened by the on-going wrangling between Europe and the US on the one hand and Iran on the other over the latter’s nuclear programme.

It is equally evident that the US is providing Israel with the necessary cover and support to finish the task of annihilating Hezbollah. According to the US, Hezbollah’s demise will pave the way for the US to establish a new Middle East, where Iran and Syria will be deprived of their proxy. As the United Nations gazes in a state of virtual paralysis, the US views Iran and Syria as the main stumbling blocks to its strategy in the region. The objective behind this war is to create a Middle East with pro-US-Israel countries. As envisaged by the US and Israel, the new Middle East should be free of "terrorism" or any form of resistance to Israel. This new order will then be able to guarantee the flow of oil to the US and its allies at reasonable prices.

While Hezbollah underestimated the Israeli reaction, a closer look at the ulterior motives of this war reveals that it has little to do with the abduction of two soldiers. What is happening on the ground is a systematic destruction of the Lebanese state. The US is frustrating all diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire, which gives Israel more time to achieve its task of neutralising Hezbollah. From the American and Israeli perspectives, Hezbollah’s annihilation will serve two purposes: first, it will remove the security threat that the organisation poses to Israel; and second, it will enable the US to disarm the most visible weapons of its adversaries —Syria and Iran.

The bloody events in Lebanon may come to an end if any of the following two scenarios takes place: one, if Hezbollah is decisively defeated. Though not easy, such an eventuality will enable Israel to dictate terms. Second, if Israel achieves a limited and face-saving military victory, which will give way to a diplomatic solution where the United States will sponsor an acceptable deal to Israel and Lebanon. The hallmarks of such a deal will include removal of Hezbollah from the border and deployment of either the Lebanese armed forces or a UN multinational force, which appears to be most likely scenario.

Either way and even if the conflict ends soon enough, its repercussions will be evident for a long time. The devastation inflicted on the country would have a long-lasting impact. The weakened and paralysed infrastructure of the country means that billions of dollars will be required for reconstruction, a process that might require decades to accomplish.

As far as the Lebanese people are concerned, the war has united them at one level and heightened their bitterness towards Arab countries, which failed to take any action in the face of the Israeli carnage. If the war ends with a settlement that favours Israel, the unity of the Lebanese people will be tested as the embittered Hezbollah will challenge such a deal. Even if the agreement to end the conflict accommodates Hezbollah politically, it will be hard to imagine the resumption of smooth relations between Hezbollah and the Lebanese state. This is because the price of the war that Hezbollah invited upon Lebanon will be remembered as too heavy to bear.

On the Arab political scene, this war has reinforced the status of Washington’s main allies. These countries will remain in America’s fold in return for it’s silence over their domestic issues. On the other hand, the war is likely to cause a major rift between Arab governments and their masses because these governments will be seen as having deviated from the principles of their societies. At the economic level, the war has triggered a hike in oil prices and adversely affected stock markets in the region.

Even if Israel emerges victorious in this war, it is more likely to be construed as a defeat, especially after a militarily inferior Hezbollah put up such a stiff resistance. The war has also revealed the hollowness of Israeli military theory —a superior military force does not guarantee security.

As the quest for peace continues, it must be noted that Hezbollah made a mistake, not only in bypassing the state when it took the decision to go to war, but also in misreading the domestic, regional, and international climate. This critical assessment is not a justification for Israeli aggression, which is meant to undermine legitimate resistance against the occupation. It is also important for the international community to speed up the quest for a comprehensive peaceful settlement that will result not only in a ceasefire, but ensure exchange of prisoners and integration of some Hezbollah units of into the Lebanese Army, and reinforce the role and integrity of the state. Any settlement must also lay out a mechanism for multinational forces to be deployed along the border with a mandate to check Israeli incursions into Lebanon. Further, the issue of the occupied Shebaa farms should also be referred to international arbitration as a prelude to a final border demarcation between Israel and Lebanon.

Abdulaziz Sager is the Chairman of Gulf Research Centre in Dubai