Setanta wrote:There is no doubt that Iran bankrolls Hezbollah for as much as they think it has practical value. There can also be no doubt that Syria has Hezbollah as a client as well. Ironically, Syria originally invaded the Lebanon in the civil war thirty years ago to prop up the Maronite Christian militias, to prevent political meltdown in the Lebanon, and to preserve a govenment which had been friendly to Damascus. Their eventual support of Hezbollah, despite the Shi'ite character of the organization, was in order to continue to have a major player on-side with them in the government of the Lebanon. There is not love lost between Shi'ite and Sunni, and therefore between Syria and Iran--but the Muslims close ranks when there is an outside force.
The Maronites, with a distinct facist background, were completely destroyed as a political force in that civil war. They have had to recreate themselves, and Hezbollah emerged in 1982 as the only political force in the Lebanon prepared to defy Israel and not to truckle to the PLO. To suggest that the Lebanon as a whole is responsible for what Hezbollah does, though, simply because they are a part of the government is naive. This is no different than saying that the United States as a whole is always responsible for the consequences of the ideological policies of any given political party. (Unfortunately, analogies from political situations in other nations don't work very well, as we don't have armed militias contending for control of "turf" as is the case in the Lebanon--and as may one day be the case in Iraq.) Had Lebanese forces been responsible for the attack and the kidnapping, the point may have been valid. However, the Hezbollah militia are a separate entity, and a force at least as powerful (if not more so) than the Lebanese military and security forces which answer to the government. Since the withdrawal of Syrian forces, Hezbollah has been left as the most potent military force in the Lebanon by default.
I see this as likely to be a seriously destabilizing factor in the middle east. I haven't the least doubt that the Israelis are well aware of the dynamics in the Lebanon, and have willfully chosen to blame the national government for the actions of Hezbollah militia in order to authorize a misguieded attempt to destroy Hezbollah. I consider it misguided for a variety of reasons, and the two most prominent are these: the attempt during the civil war to destroy the PLO failed; and, the largest Muslim faction in the Lebanon are Shi'ites, and they identify Hezbollah as their political organ, even if they don't agree with extreme militants of Hebollah. The Shi'ites are prominent in the middle east in three places, southern Iraq, Iran and the Lebanon. This action of the Israelis is dubious as a prescription for the destruction of Hezbollah, and in fact may only increase their support in the Lebanon.
I also think the attempt to destroy Hamas by attacking their popular base in Gaza may well fail for the same reason. This militarist solution has failed Isreal in the past in dealing with the PLO and other Palestinian organizations before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority--and it appears that they did not learn from those examples. Meanwhile, it serious threatens the stability of a region which always lived balanced on the point of a bayonet.
It would be naive to believe the Lebanese government could disarm and disband Hezbollah with little effort or consequence if only they wanted to. I don't, at all, consider it naive hold the government of a sovereign state responsible for repeated attacks against a neighbor from within its borders.
We are not talking about shadowy terrorists who are on the run as much from the Lebanese authorities as they are from the Israelis. This was not the first time Hezbollah has attacked Israel from within the borders of Lebanon. Hezbollah is a recognized and established entity within Lebanon. Not only is it not on the lam, it has representation within the government.
To dismiss the issue of holding the Lebanese government responsible in this matter is to dismiss a very important point:
Unless one believes Israel should simply endure Hezbollah rocket attacks staged within the borders of Lebanon, then the extent to which the Lebanese government can be held responsible for activities within its borders will figure quite prominently in determining the appropriateness of Israel's response.
The government of a state clearly has responsibilities for the activities occurring within its borders. Should those activities represent an attack on neighboring countries the government has either explicitly or implicitly declared war, or is responsible for putting a stop to the attacks. The extent to which it is willing and able to halt the attacks will greatly influence the response of the nation under attack. If there was any reason to believe that the Lebanese government was willing to attempt to at least restrain Hezbollah, Israel would be required, at least by world opinion, to allow them the chance. Since the Lebanese government has shown no such inclination, what option does Israel have but to take the matter into its own hands?
Under this sort of situation, a government can only be said to not be responsible for the attacks if it is doing something to stop them. If it
will not, then it is, for all intents and purposes culpable, and if it
can not, it probably doesn't merit the designation of
government.
Freeing the entity that is being called the Lebanese government from responsibility for these attacks but still granting it the status of the official government of a sovereign state unfairly restricts Israel's options and places it in a no-win situation:
The Lebanese Government is not about to sanction Israel's military response nor ask Israel to help it rid Lebanon of Hezbollah.
The Lebanese Government is unable (and possibly unwilling) to attempt to stop Hezbollah.
Given these two conditions, Israel's military actions cannot be considered defense against acts of war, but
can be considered acts of war in themselves.
Within the context of world opinion this would seem to require Israel to either endure the attacks without reprisal or wait for the Lebanese government to grow strong enough to disband Hezbollah or ask another country provide them with the military support necessary to disband Hezbollah. The former isn't about to happen anytime soon and if Lebanon would ever have considered the latter, given their experience with Syria, it will be a long long time before they ever do again.
Thus the only two (theoretically) possible choices Israel has are endure the attacks or take action on their own. From a practical standpoint they have had only one choice.
I have no confidence at all that they will be able to eliminate the threat of Hezbollah with any sort of finality, and I have little doubt that by taking the only choice they have, the region will be further destabilized and peace that much farther away. Iran and Syria will have won this battle. It can be hoped that if nothing else, this crisis will make it that much more clear that Iran and Syria are our enemies, and not simply unfriendly nations with whom we only need to talk so we we can clear up any unfortunate misunderstanding and everything will be A-OK.
