The Israeli war on Lebanon has been quite an extraordinary one from beginning to end — the issuing of UN Resolution 1701. Many people around the world saw the Israeli retaliation against the abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah as disproportionate. The destruction of the bridges, the demolition of buildings, the killing of innocent civilians, mainly children, and the terrorizing of an entire nation —all were considered irrational and unnecessary. The uniqueness of this war was the agreement on UN Resolution 1701 by both sides as they both claimed victory and admitted their losses at the same time.
Israel did not fight a sovereign state, it engaged in hostilities with a resistance group inside a sovereign state that is strong in ideology, independent politically and has a resilient militia. At the same time, both Israel and Hezbollah were acting proxies for two states, the United States and Iran with Syria assisting logistically in many ways. Each of these conflicting parties was serving its own interests according to its own agenda. On the one hand, the United States took advantage of the war and prolonged the cease-fire agreement in order to give Israel more time to diminish Hezbollah’s strength seen by the US as Iran’s military arm at a time when America was pressuring Tehran internationally over its nuclear program. Iran, on the other hand, viewed the United States as a hostile superpower that is threatening its security and perhaps hindering its attempts to increase its influence in the region. Syria was isolated and frustrated at being forced out of Lebanon by the United States. The victim in all this was Lebanon, the state, the citizens and the economy. But it is not the first time Lebanon finds itself in this trapped corner nor will it be the last. Lebanon’s weakness as a state provides a fertile ground for such incidents.
Lebanon has always been the weaker link in the regional chain due to its small area, geographical location and poor economic situation. Its peculiar sectarian and ethnic structure puts it in the bull’s eye whenever a regional conflict arises.
Lebanon became independent in 1943. Its weakness came to the surface with the launching by Egyptian President Jamal Abdul Nasser’s of his pan-Arab movement. Lebanon suffered from Nasser’s attempts at gaining political influence and control by engineering an uprising in 1958 that led Lebanese President Camille Cham’oun to ask for US assistance. President Truman sent Marine forces on board the Sixth Fleet. The US Sixth Fleet stayed around the shores of Lebanon for six months until calm was restored.
On another occasion, with the outbreak of the 1970 Black September clashes between the Jordanians and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Lebanon was forced to receive Palestinian refugees and resistance groups who were expelled from Jordan —a matter that proved catastrophic to Lebanon. By 1975 the Palestinians became powerful, militarized and engaged in commando operations against Israel from the Lebanese territories. Eventually, they were activated domestically and started to interfere in the Lebanese politics. The outcome was the Lebanese civil war with various Palestinian and Lebanese political factions fighting each other for almost fifteen years.
In the meantime, Israel saw in Lebanon’s weakness an opportunity for the occupation of more Arab territories and false pretenses to protect its borders; Israel occupied southern Lebanon in 1982. Then came the 1989 Taif Accord that was signed by all parties concerned. They agreed on basic principles to build a new politically sovereign state with the political support of the Saudis and the military support of the Syrians. However, due to Israel’s continuing occupation of the south, Hezbollah emerged on the scene in 1992 as a resistance group to liberate the occupied lands. Although the southern lands were liberated in 2000, Hezbollah continued to be present and active in an attempt to liberate Shab’aa farms and defend the country.
The weakness of the Lebanese political structure made all this possible. The ethnic-sectarian divisions and disagreements prevented the Lebanese from having a strong central government representing all sections and focusing on developing their political institutions according to their needs and interests as stated in the Taif Accord. The result was continuing differences among each other and outside interferences, and invasions. Lebanon has been subjected to unique pressures within the context of the Middle East conflicts and the Lebanese people have been remarkable in the way they resolved their problems.
Today, Lebanon is on a new start but seems to be repeating its own mistakes. The political, sectarian and ethnic divisions have not disappeared. The people are devastated and seem to be worn out. For Lebanon to recover from this horrific war, sacrifices have to be made and political wisdom must prevail. If Hezbollah feels victorious, it must use this victory for the benefit of its people. The UN peacekeeping force cannot function properly unless the south is demilitarized. In any given war, the military leader steps aside to give room for peacetime leaders to take over. Hassan Nasrallah, with victory in hand, must use it wisely and must step aside for someone else from Hezbollah who has not been directly involved in this war. He should do this for the good of his people. Because of his strong links to Iran, Nasrallah will always be accused of bringing the Iranian politics and interests to any negotiating table.
President Emile Lahud had strong connections with Syria. A lot of unfortunate incidents and disturbances have been tied to his presidency. With the outbreak of this war and the resulting atrocities and loss of lives during his presidency, Lahud seems weakened and isolated. The Lebanese Christians seem frustrated with his stance. It would be a great opportunity for him to leave office in order to avoid any suspicion he is furthering Syrian interests in any negotiations regarding the future of Lebanon. Perhaps it is time for the Lebanese political elites to sit together in order to agree on a binding, new and strong Lebanon, democratic and free, supported by peace loving nations of this world.
As for Israel, the Olmert government will not be able to survive this horrendous mistake and inhumane hostilities against Lebanon. Israel is a democratic country and will act accordingly. Though Israel has also claimed military victory it has lost the political battle. Israel will need to be wise and pragmatic now. The political and military tools that were used in this war have been insufficient and will not bring victory in the future. With all the use of air power and sophisticated weaponry, Israel could not accomplish the designated mission. Israel must seriously consider the peaceful tract now and abide by the UN resolutions regarding the Palestinian territories.
In a peaceful region, Israel does not need to spend its revenues on military. It can be spent on economic development and growth. Arab states have made their call to make peace with Israel if Israel accepts the peace plan. Eventually, Israel will demilitarize and will reconcile. It is only a matter of time.
— Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic. She holds a doctorate from Canberra University in Australia. E-mail to: [email protected]
