|
Who
would have believed that a country so richly textured
with different religions and sects and one that had
suffered from years of civil war could have pulled
together so seamlessly when faced with a common enemy?
The Israelis
certainly didn’t and it was this miscalculation that led
to the failure of their war of choice. Writing in the
Jerusalem Post, a former member of the pro-Israel South
Lebanon Army (SLA) now exiled in northern Israel said:
“All Israel succeeded in doing was to turn the Lebanese
people into Hezbollah supporters”.
This was a war
that, according to veteran investigative reporter
Seymour Hersh writing in the New Yorker, was planned
with Washington last spring as a precursor to a possible
preemptive US strike on Iran’s nuclear reactors and
uranium enrichment facilities.
In other words,
Hezbollah - said to enjoy the military and financial
backing of Tehran - had to be pacified so that Israel
could remain safe from Shiite retribution.
Following
Hezbollah’s abduction of two Israeli soldiers and the
slaying of eight others on July 12 – initially deemed
“reckless” by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan - Israel
responded by bombing Lebanese power stations and
infrastructure.
Israel wrought this devastation in the knowledge that the Lebanese
government and people had nothing to do with Hezbollah’s
actions, eliciting condemnation from the international
community with the exception of the usual suspects the
US and Britain – the only two powers that shamefully
refused to call for an immediate ceasefire.
Even as the bodies
of toddlers still clutching their teddy bears or with
their arms around their mothers’ necks were being pulled
from out of the rubble, Israeli spokesmen disingenuously
countered they were merely helping the Lebanese
government to stamp its authority over the entire
country.
Israel’s Chief of Staff Dan Halutz threatened to turn Lebanon’s
clock back 20 years. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned
ominously “the rules of the game have changed”.
Many analysts found
these gung ho statements curious, and even more so when
the Christian areas of Ashrafieh and Jounieh were hit,
hardly Hezbollah hotbeds. Why punish an entire country
for the actions of a sectarian militia operating from
the south?
The novice Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his former rose-growing
sidekick Amir Peretz believed massive destruction would
turn the Lebanese people against the Shiite resistance.
We can only imagine their surprise when it had the exact
opposite effect.
During the
conflict, local polls suggested that up to 87 per cent
of all Lebanese supported Hezbollah. Syria generously
opened its borders to fleeing refugees where they were
greeted with shelter and food.
Christian families
welcomed displaced Shiites into their mountain homes,
Palestinian refugee camps took in people whose houses
had been destroyed, while church bells rang out
throughout the land following a televised speech of
Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.
Like the Lebanese
people, the country’s politicians displayed rare
solidarity in support of the resistance. There were a
few exceptions; most notably Druze leader Walid Jumblatt,
who from his mountain fastness lashed out at Nasrallah
as well as the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, openly
basked in reflected glory from Hezbollah’s military
successes.
Speaking on Al-Mustaqbal
TV at the height of the conflict on July 29, Jumblatt
said:
“Whatever happens,
Hezbollah will emerge victorious. To whom will Hezbollah
dedicate this victory? Will it dedicate the victory to
the Lebanese state, to the honoring of international
resolutions, to the Taif Agreement? Or will it dedicate
it to the Syrian regime, the Syrian-Iranian axis, in
which case we will become scorched earth, annexed to
Syria and Iran?”
For his part,
Nasrallah took great pains to present his militia as
Lebanese first and foremost and stressed the need for
national unity. On one occasion he counseled the
Lebanese people not to take to the streets for
anti-Israel protests. His intention was to deprive
opportunistic pro-Israel/pro-US agents their chance to
light a sectarian fire.
Then following the
cessation of hostilities enshrined in UN Resolution
1701, Nasrallah was careful not to distinguish between
religious groups when it came to handing out wads of
cash to the dispossessed for rents and furniture.
Faced with
Nasrallah’s growing folk-hero status at home and abroad,
Lebanon’s Sunni Prime Minister Fou’ad Siniora – who came
to power on the back of the American-inspired “Cedar
Revolution” - was wisely conciliatory going as far as to
thank the resistance during one of his talks to the
nation.
President Emile
Lahoud, a pro-Syrian Christian, and Speaker of the
Lebanese Assembly Nabih Berri leader of the Shiite party
Amal were predictably supportive of Hezbollah
throughout.
Saad Hariri, the
pro-Western political son and heir of the late former
Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, diplomatically
refrained from turning his ire against Hezbollah,
instead reserving his scorn for Damascus.
Between them
Siniora, Lahoud, Berri and Hariri with the cooperation
of Nasrallah, managed to keep their disparate nation
together; no small feat when people woke up to a new
tragedy almost every single day.
One could only
watch with incredulity as newly homeless, sometimes
bereaving families smiled, waved Lebanese flags or gave
the thumbs-up sign. Mothers of fallen fighters fought
back tears to say they were willing to sacrifice their
other sons if need be. These selfless attitudes were
surely lessons in humility and nobility for all of us.
Walid Jumblatt was
wrong to say Hezbollah would emerge victorious. More
than 1,000 Lebanese civilians were deprived of their
lives during the conflict, one third of them children.
Almost one million were displaced from their villages
and towns. Over 15,000 families were left homeless.
Moreover, Lebanon’s
economy has been set back at least a decade with US$3.6
billion needed for reconstruction. There is no doubt
that building houses will be an easier task than
building a new investor confidence.
In short, there are
no true winners. If we ask ourselves whether Lebanon has
benefited from this war, the answer has to be a
resounding “no”.
During an interview
on the Lebanese channel New TV several weeks after the
implementation of the truce, a contrite Nasrallah
admitted that if he knew in advance that Israel would be
so barbaric in its targeting of civilians, he would not
have sanctioned the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. He
says all he wanted was a prisoner exchange of the kind
that had occurred several times before.
He further made it
clear that despite repeated Israeli provocations
threatening the fragile ceasefire he had no intention of
going another round.
The fact that
Hezbollah has voluntarily dismantled its outposts
bordering the disputed Shebaa Farms area and stood back
as pockets of Israeli troops blew up some of its
elaborate underground bunkers probably means he can be
taken at his word.
With up to 15,000
UNIFIL troops flooding into the country, Lebanon has to
some extent lost its precious independence, gained after
23 years when Israel withdrew in 2000 followed by the
Syrian pull-out last year.
Indeed, whatever
measure of “victory” Hezbollah was able to achieve was
stripped from Lebanon when it signed up to UNSC
Resolution 1701, heavily weighted in Israel’s favor.
If Israel and the
White House have their way, there would be another
resolution to follow. This would empower UNIFIL to
disarm the resistance and set up posts along the
Lebanese-Syrian border to check for illegal arms
smuggling, although it’s doubtful it will get off the
ground.
If it did, it would
signify yet another disaster for Lebanon, triggering
sectarian strife and putting an end to Lebanese-Syrian
relations.
Bashar Al-Assad has
already warned he would interpret foreign troops on his
border as a “hostile act” and would seal the crossing
points, thus cutting off Lebanon’s sole access by land.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has indicated that the
inserting of UN troops between friendly nations would be
unprecedented.
In spite of huge
losses in terms of life and treasure, the Lebanese
people did emerge with a renewed sense of togetherness
and national “karama” the Arabic word for pride or
honor. The Israelis, on the other hand, can make no
such claim.
Olmert, Peretz and
Halutz, accused of gross incompetence, are fighting for
their political lives. The right says they should have
used an even more brutal combat strategy. The left is
embarrassed at the devastation inflicted on Lebanese
civilians. The hawks are itching to have another go.
Some 67 per cent of Israelis want all three to step
down.
Some of the
angriest Israelis are reservists who say they were sent
into battle without the proper intelligence, training,
equipment or clear military aims. They say they were
left in theatre without food or water forcing them to
drink from the troughs of farm animals or the canteens
of dead resistance fighters.
They say their
officers told them to expect a primitive rag tag militia
when, in reality, they were faced with a highly-trained
army equipped with state-of-the-art weapons, including
tank-busting missiles. They talk about being sent into
wadis like sitting targets; about trees that suddenly
walked and the strange ability of the resistance to know
their every move in advance.
One wonders how
George Bush managed to keep a straight face as he lauded
Israel’s military triumph against “the terrorists” when
the world and its wife, including the Israeli public,
knows this not to be true.
Israelis are only
too aware of just how much they have lost. For many
their biggest loss was their nation’s regional deterrent
value. The failure of their military has emboldened
their enemies and smashed the myth of Israel’s
invincibility, thus leaving it vulnerable.
Yet others are
worried that Israel’s strategic usefulness to its US
mentor has been devalued. Americans like winners and the
day may come when they won’t be prepared to dig deep
into their pockets to feed a dog whose tail can’t wag.
Whereas Lebanon
bravely gets set for yet another period of renewal,
Israelis are flaying around looking for scapegoats or
indulging in self-flagellation. Israel is a wounded lion
but instead of licking its wounds it is turning them
into suppurating sores.
Israel’s
former right-wing Prime Minister and head of the Likud
party Binyamin Nethanyahu ominously waits in the wings
for his chance to get even. Polls suggest the now
fearful Israeli public has turned to the right.
Olmert’s unilateral
“convergence plan” that entailed Israel withdrawing from
most of the West Bank has been binned. Government voices
that tentatively brought up the possibility of talks
with Syria have been silenced. So what happens now?
Will Israel search
for a pretext to renew hostilities with the aim of
winning at all costs? Or will it cut its losses and
realize that the only way forward is a return to the
peace table on the lines of the Saudi proposal fielded
during a 2002 Arab League Summit held in Beirut?
Those of us who
care about the future of this region can only pray that
the peacemakers will eventually prevail. The alternative
is too awful to contemplate. | 
