Thoughts on the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah

So I’ve had way too much time to watch CNN these days, and as a lot of friends know I’m a bit of an NPR junky. As a result, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on what’s been going on for the last few weeks regarding the conflict between Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon. I’ve spent the last few days working on the following essay and if any of you should take the time to read this and want to offer any feedback, I’d love to hear from ya. Oddly enough, I did consider sending this to the Weekly Dig, my old stomping grounds. They still have an opinion column that use to be written primarily by readers or non-Digsters, called Soapbox. I clicked on the link at their site and came across a variety of articles including the Savage Love column, which I don’t think is a “Soapbox” column so I’m not sure if the “Soapbox” link links to more than just “Soapbox” pieces, or if that one Savage Love column is an isolated error or if the term "Soapbox" has a different meaning there then it use to during my tenure. Whcihever, the type of material they’ve recently run, a satire on the “Dummies” series mascot, a gay conversation on “faggotry” and a writer's odd lament to an ovary she is having removed, suggested to me that I am still not quite right for that paper. If anyone reading this thinks I’m just being self-defeating, let me know, maybe I’ll submit it for kicks…

***



In the last few days Israel’s military has killed UN observers, dozens of women and children in an apartment building, damaged hospitals, interfered in humanitarian aid convoys and now this: Israel causes 'worst environmental disaster' in Mediterranean. Granted, the source is Tehran Times, no fan of Israel, and Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israel daily, but I am hardly convinced that Israel's response has been proportionate to the threat or can accomplish its stated goals of breaking Hezbollah. Furthermore, the more intensely Israel seems to attack, the more intensely Hezbollah seems to respond, and additionally, the more intensely Israel attacks, the more disasters that befall the region (the aforementioned deaths of women and children, UN observers, the oil spill, etc.).

Israel is surrounded by nations that would love to see it disappear. Of this there is no doubt, but what is also undeniable is that its current actions against Lebanon are not increasing its long term security or opening up opportunities for dialogue with the many enemies Israel faces in the region. While nationalistic hyperbole like, “we must secure our borders” seems like practical justification for the attacks, the results of these actions carry with them long term emotional and political impact that, in my opinion, outweigh subscribing to the simplistic notion that protecting one’s border through military violence against a threatening neighbor is always justified. There is no question that all nations have the right to protect their borders but it is more than prudent to ask, what is the best way to protect those borders? Israel’s use of overwhelming force on Lebanon is hardly looking like the best way.

A question not being discussed very much in media is: where is the Lebanese army in all this? This article, from Bloomberg Financial of all places, indicates that the Lebanese army is avoiding the conflict for fear of putting the country into a civil war. The government apparently lacks the political will to remove Hezbollah because the militia/political party has such widespread support from many Muslims in Lebanon. Additionally, the Lebanese military is not strong enough to face off with Hezbollah according to experts in the region. Given this knowledge, which Israel Defense Forces must have and in far more detail than Bloomberg Financial, what is Israel thinking? If it is well known that the nation of Lebanon can’t displace Hezbollah, even under peacetime conditions, why have we heard Israel so often critical of Lebanon for not having removed Hezbollah? And, if Hezbollah is as popular and powerful as it appears to be and have been for years, does Israel really think it can break Hezbollah by laying waste to the infrastructure of what little democratic power there was in Lebanon? Is it not plainly clear that for every few dozen rockets or launchers that Israel takes out, it is doing far more damage to any possible stable government in Lebanon? And wouldn’t a growing and progressing democracy centered in Beirut be the best long term solution to preventing hostility by Hezbollah towards Israel? Even if it is technically possible for Israel to break Hezbollah militarily, at what cost will such a victory, if it can ultimately be called that, be won? Already the list of unintentional atrocities is very high, and Lebanon has been set back decades in both its political and economic progress, and this is only after three weeks of conflict.

While Syrian and Iranian support of Hezbollah is a given, such an accusation is a red herring in regards to seeking a cease fire and an end to the current violence. The wider political problems of the region are immense and complex, and the US perspective of seeking political solutions before a cease fire be implemented sounds perplexingly like Bush and Co. would like to somehow solve centuries of conflict over the next few days before asking Israel to stop bombing Lebanon. Furthermore, while much has been said about Hezbollah’s kidnapping of several soldiers a few weeks ago that sparked this offensive by Israel, little has been said about exactly why Hezbollah committed such an act – and it should be noted that this initial attack by Hezbollah was not on civilians, but on a military target; soldiers, not civilians, were the intended victims of Hezbollah at the time. One thing I have found myself wondering about is that although several sources have stated that Hezbollah has demanded the release of all Lebanese prisoners held by Israel in return for the Israeli soldiers they abducted, I can’t help but think that Israel’s arrest of 100 Hamas politicians in Palestine, including the speaker of Palestine’s parliament and several sitting ministers on June 30th, can hardly be discounted as motivating anti-Israeli factions all over the Middle east to consider action against Israel as justified. I can not think of any nation on earth that would sit back and watch as its prime minister and other members of its parliament were rounded up by a foreign country and do nothing. In fact, I think the most reasonable assumption is that any nation facing such action would immediately strike back and if incapable of doing so itself, would look to its allies to move on its behalf. Israel had to have known this when it made the arrests in June.

What I am suggesting, as many others have as well, is a Chicken or Egg argument for the violence in the Middle East. At this point, there appears to be no fair way to determine which came first, the violations of Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel – but what is known is that Israel’s attacks on Lebanon appear to be doing as much, if not more damage, to the innocent civilian population of a formerly burgeoning Lebanon, and to other innocent bystanders (the UN, the environment) than they appear to be damaging Hezbollah.

Israel, by any logical appraisal of the situation, can neither break Hezbollah nor win the return of its soldiers via its current tactics. It can however further worsen relations in the region, and, even distance itself from some of its western allies. Given this, an immediate cease-fire is not only the humane thing to do, but also in Israel’s best interest in that it will then allow Israel to focus on other potentially more fruitful solutions to its impasse with Hezbollah.

Will Hezbollah accept a cease fire? There is only one way to find out – and that is to give it a go. If Hezbollah does not abide by an offered ceasefire, than Israel would be far more justified in launching another offensive and/or working with a multinational force to protect the border and seek out Hezbollah strongholds. If Israel offers an olive branch and Hezbollah refuses it, there is little justifiable criticism that could be brought towards Israel for resuming military actions against an aggressor that refuses a peace offering. If Hezbollah does agree to a cease fire, than the world at large could work to both assist in resolving the current conflict with Hezbollah (and Israel may have to concede that its tactics of arrests in Palestine and widespread bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon were disproportionate in order to genuinely protect its borders) as well as begin humanitarian aid efforts in Lebanon, along with the slow rebuilding, yet again, of a country shattered by war for far too long.