So, how did we get to the latest round of violence between Israel and Lebanon? In an attempt to free its prisoners in Israel, Hezbollah — a Shi’a Muslim group with both civilian and militant (terrorist) wings — attacked an Israeli convoy, killing three and capturing two (hoping to exchange Israeli captives for their own). Fed up with these continued attacks, Israel has responded with a large-scale assault on Lebanon. But if the purpose of Israel’s response is to isolate Hezbollah — which seems like a laudable goal — I question the wisdom of taking out Beirut’s airport, roads, and other civilian infrastructure. Surely, a weakened Lebanon makes it more susceptible to influence by Syria and Iran (which is definitely not a good thing). Israel’s rationale seems to be borrowed from George W. Bush — that anyone harboring a terrorist is a terrorist. And since Lebanon has done nothing to stop Hezbollah terrorists, Israel feels justified in conducting a country-wide assault.
But can Lebanon itself really destroy Hezbollah? For much of its existence Lebanon has had its own internal conflicts, hence its 1958 civil conflicts, and the 1975-1990 civil war. Lebanon is not comprised solely of Muslims, let alone Shi’a Muslims (for whom Hezbollah purportedly speaks). Not even close. Lebanon is 40% Christian, and less than half are Shi’a Muslims. It is a country comprised of diverse religious groups, both Muslim (Shi’a, Sunni, Druze, Alawite), and Christian (Maronite Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, etc). It is naive to think that any one group is strong enough to remove Hezbollah right now (even if it was desired), or that a coalition can form immediately after so many years of sectarian violence. By taking action against Hezbollah, Lebanon risks another civil war (it should be said that 1990, the Lebanese government considered Hezbollah a legitimate resistance to Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon; Israeli withdrew is 2000). Now, after 15 years of reconstructing its civilian infrastructure, and despite the fact that most Lebanese are not Shi’a Muslim, the entire country will now suffer.
Building coalition of peace-seeking Israelis, Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Shi’a Muslims that don’t support Hezbollah will take time — a generation or more — for parties to earn the trust of one another. But it is what is necessary in the long-term to isolate Hezbollah. I fear that by expanding the conflict across Lebanon, Israel could very well be creating more support for Hezbollah rather than building the bridges necessary to cut it off.
This brings us back to the core question of how to best defeat terrorism. If the goal is to get rid of Hezbollah, does weakening Lebanon as a whole help or hinder? Surely, a weakened Lebanon will call for aid. And who will answer that call? Will Israel? Did it destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure to help rebuild it? Highly unlikely. Will the U.S.? Given its close ties with Israel, and the fact it has its own problems in Iraq, U.S. help is also unlikely. Will France (which colonized Lebanon until 1945)? Maybe. But, if aid from the West doesn’t come, Lebanon will be forced to seek the aid of Syria and Iran. And that only strengthens the forces that Israel seeks to remove from Lebanon. So, Israel’s broad campaign against Lebanon, while satisfying the short-term desire for revenge (justified or not), like the U.S. invasion of Iraq, is helping to destabilize an already tenuous situation. If Lebanon is weakened, Syria and Iran will fill the void (but perhaps that is what they had hoped for all along?). And surely that is not helpful for Israel or the U.S. So, without assigning blame to either Lebanon or Israel, it is clear that if this campaign substantially weakens Lebanon, it will only sow the seeds of more Syrian/Iranian influence, which can only mean more terrorism.
This seemingly obvious fact makes the U.S. position all the more perplexing. The U.S. is the only country that can influence Israel. Rather than attempt diffuse the situation, George W. Bush appears to be endorsing Israel’s broad attack on Lebanon — in the name of defending against terrorism — with nary a concern that a destabilized Lebanon makes their mission in Iraq that much more difficult. Of all the failures of the Bush administration (and even they admit to many), their failure to act to diffuse the Israel-Lebanon crisis could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
If your comment doesn't appear, it is because our automatic anti-spam software is blocking it. If so, just send us an email and we will post it for you.