As The Dust Settles And The Smoke Clears In Lebanon
Michael Butler
August 15, 2006
As the dust settles and the smoke clears in Lebanon, Israel enters a time of introspection and some recriminations. Israelis widely believe that the stated aims of their military operation are unfulfilled; and with the sense of isolation experienced as a nation under siege, they blame themselves for this failure. It is a viewpoint which assigns themselves the total responsibility for their own destiny — as if they, and only they can marshal the forces required to command other nations and the non-state actors surrounding them to obey the dictates of their will.
Perhaps there is something in this mindset which has helped contribute to Israel's manufacture of its own problems. The policy of unilateral withdrawal, for example, which on the surface appears to affirm a laudable goal of land for peace, in fact has left a power vacuum behind the Israeli retreat which has only served to empower Israel's enemies. Israel has consistently failed to to empower neighboring governments — the Palestinian Authority on the West, and Lebanon in the north — to assume security in the territories it has left behind. Even the most basic discussions about which roads are being returned would have gone a long way to help begin building good neighborly relations; but the failure to negotiate has served as an act of indirect hostility.
So when Israeli ambassador Dan Gillerman harshly scolded the United Nations Security Council for failing to enforce UN Resolution 1559 regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, in affect assigning blame to the international community for the situation which resulted in Israel's violent outburst against the Lebanese people, it has to be asked whether Israel did anything, diplomatically or otherwise, to engage the Lebanese government or the international community in carrying out the mandate of Resolution 1559 during the years that led up to the current crisis.
And similarly, as the Israelis now blame themselves and each other for having conducted an ineffective military campaign, they have totally missed the point about their own accomplishment. Because now, with the mandate of U.N. resolution 1701, the international community IS engaged. No one should minimize the importance of the spectacle of the French Foreign Minister taking pains to make it absolutely clear to Sheik Hassan Nasrallah that disarmament is not a negotiable issue or one that can be indefinitely prolonged.
It is possible that massive international cooperation and assistance will now bring about the effective realization of the Israelis' short-term military goals. There are a lot of precarious ifs and maybes — if the fragile Lebanese government can survive its own internal divisions during this transition; if the rebuilding of Lebanon brings credit to the international community instead of Hezbollah; if the Unifil force can conduct its mission without turning into another ugly occupation and insurgency — then maybe Condoleeza Rice will have her wish, of no return to the status quo ante, and no invention of anything worse.
If there are lessons for Israel from this adventure, it should be seen that war as a tactic is a clear loser, particularly as it was used in this misbegotten invasion. Ever greater reliance on military security alone is not the answer to Israel's problems, and turning even further inward is a recipe for more disasters. But engaging cooperation with other nations offers a pathway to hope and strength.
In particular, Israel would be wise to court friendship now with the Lebanese government, whatever the costs in atonement it may have to pay for violating Lebanon's sovereignty. Because down the road, Hezbollah has been vastly empowered as a political force, not only within Lebanon but across the Middle East. Hezbollah has become the new face of Arab pride and defiance, taking the place of Saddam Hussein, and of Gamal Abdel Nasser before him: the image of manhood that says, we will have our rights, respect and dignity — by any means necessary.
Perhaps there is something good about this, to the extent that Hezbollah as a social justice organization helps to build community among Arab people. But nothing would be worse for Israel than for Hezbollah, in the end, to assume full control of the Lebanese government. Israel has spawned such hostility among the Lebanese people that one cannot now rule this out as a long-term consequence. But even if this does not occur, it may be only a matter of time before the radical movement Israel has inadvertently fostered — together with the U.S. presence in Iraq — brings down one of the autocratic, so-called moderate Arab governments that consistently violate the will of their own people.
And then, perhaps some Americans will begin to understand at least one of the motives for terrorism. Why would anyone embrace violence as a political tool, even to glorify mass murder by self-immolation? Perhaps, as many fear, there is a longterm strategy toward some kind of worldwide theocratic domination; but there are certainly much more basic explanations. It is not that they hate our freedom, as George Bush so often claims. But on some level, I think, they envy our freedom, and want it for themselves — not the corrupt, licentious self-indulgence and arrogance that earns deserved hatred, but the basic affirmation of self-determination that our government, our historic allies and our economic institutions have taken, withheld or blocked them from achieving on their own.
Michael Butler is a poet and freelance writer who also served as a Campaign Representative for Ralph Nader during the Presidential Election of 2004.
Perhaps there is something in this mindset which has helped contribute to Israel's manufacture of its own problems. The policy of unilateral withdrawal, for example, which on the surface appears to affirm a laudable goal of land for peace, in fact has left a power vacuum behind the Israeli retreat which has only served to empower Israel's enemies. Israel has consistently failed to to empower neighboring governments — the Palestinian Authority on the West, and Lebanon in the north — to assume security in the territories it has left behind. Even the most basic discussions about which roads are being returned would have gone a long way to help begin building good neighborly relations; but the failure to negotiate has served as an act of indirect hostility.
So when Israeli ambassador Dan Gillerman harshly scolded the United Nations Security Council for failing to enforce UN Resolution 1559 regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, in affect assigning blame to the international community for the situation which resulted in Israel's violent outburst against the Lebanese people, it has to be asked whether Israel did anything, diplomatically or otherwise, to engage the Lebanese government or the international community in carrying out the mandate of Resolution 1559 during the years that led up to the current crisis.
And similarly, as the Israelis now blame themselves and each other for having conducted an ineffective military campaign, they have totally missed the point about their own accomplishment. Because now, with the mandate of U.N. resolution 1701, the international community IS engaged. No one should minimize the importance of the spectacle of the French Foreign Minister taking pains to make it absolutely clear to Sheik Hassan Nasrallah that disarmament is not a negotiable issue or one that can be indefinitely prolonged.
It is possible that massive international cooperation and assistance will now bring about the effective realization of the Israelis' short-term military goals. There are a lot of precarious ifs and maybes — if the fragile Lebanese government can survive its own internal divisions during this transition; if the rebuilding of Lebanon brings credit to the international community instead of Hezbollah; if the Unifil force can conduct its mission without turning into another ugly occupation and insurgency — then maybe Condoleeza Rice will have her wish, of no return to the status quo ante, and no invention of anything worse.
If there are lessons for Israel from this adventure, it should be seen that war as a tactic is a clear loser, particularly as it was used in this misbegotten invasion. Ever greater reliance on military security alone is not the answer to Israel's problems, and turning even further inward is a recipe for more disasters. But engaging cooperation with other nations offers a pathway to hope and strength.
In particular, Israel would be wise to court friendship now with the Lebanese government, whatever the costs in atonement it may have to pay for violating Lebanon's sovereignty. Because down the road, Hezbollah has been vastly empowered as a political force, not only within Lebanon but across the Middle East. Hezbollah has become the new face of Arab pride and defiance, taking the place of Saddam Hussein, and of Gamal Abdel Nasser before him: the image of manhood that says, we will have our rights, respect and dignity — by any means necessary.
Perhaps there is something good about this, to the extent that Hezbollah as a social justice organization helps to build community among Arab people. But nothing would be worse for Israel than for Hezbollah, in the end, to assume full control of the Lebanese government. Israel has spawned such hostility among the Lebanese people that one cannot now rule this out as a long-term consequence. But even if this does not occur, it may be only a matter of time before the radical movement Israel has inadvertently fostered — together with the U.S. presence in Iraq — brings down one of the autocratic, so-called moderate Arab governments that consistently violate the will of their own people.
And then, perhaps some Americans will begin to understand at least one of the motives for terrorism. Why would anyone embrace violence as a political tool, even to glorify mass murder by self-immolation? Perhaps, as many fear, there is a longterm strategy toward some kind of worldwide theocratic domination; but there are certainly much more basic explanations. It is not that they hate our freedom, as George Bush so often claims. But on some level, I think, they envy our freedom, and want it for themselves — not the corrupt, licentious self-indulgence and arrogance that earns deserved hatred, but the basic affirmation of self-determination that our government, our historic allies and our economic institutions have taken, withheld or blocked them from achieving on their own.
Michael Butler is a poet and freelance writer who also served as a Campaign Representative for Ralph Nader during the Presidential Election of 2004.
Print
Email
