Any comparison between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s and Hezbollah chief Nasrallah’s political rhetoric must conclude that the latter is the more rational. His speeches are more consistent with the facts and rely less than Olmert’s on religious expressions and allusions.
Nasrallah would never dare seal a parliamentary speech with a lengthy prayer, as Olmert did in his latest speech before the Knesset.
Israeli politicians have no cultural or moral edge over resistance leaders. The latter are far less attached to Iran than the former are to the US, and Hezbollah’s constituency is less attached to Iran than the organized Jewish community abroad is to Israel.
The people who unleashed the brutal war against Lebanon are neither intelligent nor courageous. Quite the opposite; they are mediocrities, cowards and opportunists, but they happen to have military superiority. And they possess the keys to the machinery of a state, a real state, one that is secure in its identity, that has clear national security goals and channels of national mobilization, as opposed to a long deferred project for statehood and a states built on the fragmentation of national identity.
On the other side is a resistance movement operating in the context of a denominationally organized society, a Lebanese government neutralized to everything but sectarianism, and an Arab order parts of which are rooting for Israel to do what it is incapable, or too embarrassed, to do itself, which is to deal with the resistance as a militia because it foregrounds their own lack of national and popular legitimacy.
Israel has nothing to show for ten days of barbaric vandalism and the deliberate targeting of civilians. It cannot claim a single military victory against the Lebanese resistance. It can, though, point proudly to whole residential quarters that have been reduced to rubble, to the burned-out hulks and ruins of countless wharfs, factories, bridges, roads, tunnels, electricity generators and civil defense buildings. In terms of explosive and destructive power Israel has thrown an atom bomb on Lebanon, it is the Israeli Hiroshima.
True, Israel suffers a paucity of intelligence on the whereabouts of Hezbollah members, which is why it has been targeting the homes of their families. But this does not justify the systematic bombardment of Lebanese society, and the attempts to destroy its economy. This is the epitome of terrorism: The incitement of terror in a civilian populace by unleashing massive violence and destruction against it in an attempt to compel the people’s political leaders to act against the Lebanese resistance or to change their positions.
The current Israeli assault against Lebanon has nothing to do with freeing two captured soldiers. That is a purely tangential concern, and Israel will probably agree to a prisoner exchange when the time comes. Of prime concern, on the other hand, is an agenda that has bearings on Lebanese domestic, as well as American agenda for regional, politics.
The issue is not why the resistance chose this particular time for its operation. Timing, here, becomes another pretext for vilifying the resistance and justifying the aggression. The fact is that, over the past few months, the resistance made several attempts to capture Israeli soldiers. The difference is that its last attempt succeeded. Also, the Israeli soldiers that died in this operation were not killed in combat, but rather because their tank rolled over a land mine while pursuing the kidnappers. A more important question is why Israel chose this time to launch a full-scale attack?
The timing is an Israeli-American one. And the answer resides with the Arabs and the US, and their inability to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and dismantle the Lebanese resistance with Arab tools. So Israel stepped forward. The only difference between today and the earlier bombardments — the “Day of Reckoning” and “Grapes of Wrath” between 1993 and 1996 — is that Syrian forces are no longer present in Lebanon. Instead there is an American-sponsored project for the country, involving the rest of the Arab world, which was to change the structure of government in Lebanon and transform it into an ally of the US, a good neighbor to Israel and a participant in US-oriented alliances in the region.
The project took off following the assassination of Al-Hariri, but in recent months it had run aground as it became increasingly clear that the Arabs had no practical means to keep it afloat. What kept discussions in Beirut from collapsing completely was the fact that the only alternative was internal violence and civil war. But while it was obvious that the talks were useful in keeping violence at bay and, hence, good for the tourist season, they were not helping to advance the American project in Lebanon. It was equally obvious, therefore, that those who wanted to push this project were expecting something to happen — a US strike against Iran, for example, or an Israeli strike against Lebanon. Given the Iranian option remains currently out of bounds, Israel knew it could count on a tacit green light from major Arab powers for its attack against Lebanon, and they did not disappoint it. It was the scope and vehemence of Israel’s actions in Lebanon that came as the surprise.
This is neither an Iranian nor a Syrian war. The fist is just being involved in dialogue with the Americans and the second has been trying to avoid a war with Israel for decades.
Israel’s aim is to change the rules of the game between Israel and Lebanon and, therefore, within Lebanon itself. This is the only point of similarity between the current campaign and the war of 1982. The major differences are that, on the negative side, international and regional circumstances favor Israel, while on the positive side the resistance, which is not Palestinian but Lebanese this time, is much stronger and better organized. To these two we can add another, which is that the Lebanese are not heading toward another May 17; that experience they have put firmly behind them and no one wants to rake it up again. Even after the Syrian withdrawal the Lebanese society has much more positive attitude toward the Lebanese resistance than it had toward the Palestinian resistance. In those days of 1982 a part of the Lebanese people fought on the side of the Israelis. The initiative now lies in the hands of the Lebanese people and the resistance. They, alone, have the ability to thwart the conspiracy. International delegations will soon appear in Lebanon to reap the fruits of the aggression. They will promise the Lebanese a cease-fire if they implement 1559, saying that there is no longer any excuse for delaying implementation now that the Israeli Army has demonstrated the consequences of non— implementation.
Roed-Larsen’s visit was not a fact-finding mission. Sending Roed-Larsen was in itself a political statement. He is not only the Israeli Labor Party’s man on the conflict with the Palestinians, he is also the spokesman of the Israeli position with respect to the Lebanese resistance.
— Dr. Azmi Bishara is member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) and founding member of the National Democratic Assembly (NDA), representing the Arab minority in Israel under the banner of national, democratic values.
