Can Israel win?
There has, in the past days, been no shortage of experts telling us that it is enough for Hezbollah to stand up to Israel and survive in order for it to achieve victory. This is based on the assumption that a victory lies in the eyes of the beholder and that the relevant beholder is the Arab street. An Associated Press article published today carries a quote from retired Lebanese General Elias Hanna that sums it up: "Hezbollah wins if it doesn't lose. And Israel loses if it doesn't win".
My definition of an Israeli victory in this conflict, and I think that this is also the definition of the Israeli government, would be for the Lebanese front to go permanently quiet. Whether Hezbollah is destroyed or not is, in itself, of little interest to Israel, although it is certainly important for Lebanon’s internal balance. Of course, if they survive as a military force, Hezbollah might be able to sell the whole episode to the Arab public as a victory. At the end of the day, however, what the Arab street thinks is probably not as important as some journalists and observers seem to think. Arab leaders are not known for being particularly democratic and are for the most part fairly rational (where their own survival is concerned). None of them will rush into a guaranteed military disaster simply because the Arab street gets the false impression that Israel is weak and that it can be defeated.
The question remains, will Israel actually manage to achieve long-term quiet on the Northern Front? This blogger is of the humble opinion that it will. If Hezbollah ends up having to accept a demilitarized zone in Southern Lebanon it will lose the most important means it has of keeping the front open – cross-border raids. The rockets, which it would still be able to fire from anywhere in Lebanon, have in fact proven to be quite a flop. Two weeks of daily Katyusha barrages have led to the death of less than 20 Israeli civilians (not much more than a single suicide bombing would have achieved) and no appreciable softening of Israeli public opinion. The rest of Lebanon has paid a high-enough price for this meagre result that they will probably make it extremely difficult for Hezbollah to use its rockets to provoke further conflict in future.
My definition of an Israeli victory in this conflict, and I think that this is also the definition of the Israeli government, would be for the Lebanese front to go permanently quiet. Whether Hezbollah is destroyed or not is, in itself, of little interest to Israel, although it is certainly important for Lebanon’s internal balance. Of course, if they survive as a military force, Hezbollah might be able to sell the whole episode to the Arab public as a victory. At the end of the day, however, what the Arab street thinks is probably not as important as some journalists and observers seem to think. Arab leaders are not known for being particularly democratic and are for the most part fairly rational (where their own survival is concerned). None of them will rush into a guaranteed military disaster simply because the Arab street gets the false impression that Israel is weak and that it can be defeated.
The question remains, will Israel actually manage to achieve long-term quiet on the Northern Front? This blogger is of the humble opinion that it will. If Hezbollah ends up having to accept a demilitarized zone in Southern Lebanon it will lose the most important means it has of keeping the front open – cross-border raids. The rockets, which it would still be able to fire from anywhere in Lebanon, have in fact proven to be quite a flop. Two weeks of daily Katyusha barrages have led to the death of less than 20 Israeli civilians (not much more than a single suicide bombing would have achieved) and no appreciable softening of Israeli public opinion. The rest of Lebanon has paid a high-enough price for this meagre result that they will probably make it extremely difficult for Hezbollah to use its rockets to provoke further conflict in future.
Still, I would maintain that the achievement of long-term quiet in the North should be but an intermediate goal. As long as full peace is not achieved with Syria, the potential for mischief in the North and on the Palestinian front will remain. Peace between Israel and Syria would terminate Hezbollah, end the maximalist dreams of Hamas and deal a severe blow to Iran's growing power in the region. That is why I think that it is a great pity that Syrian-Israeli peace talks remain off the agenda for the foreseeable future.

5 Comments:
Coincidentally there was a relevant article on today's Times. It was about the Arab military mind and deals with some issues you raise: http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=232668
I think that the best outcome would be for the liberation of Lebanon from the malevolent influence of Syria together with the destruction of Hizbullah's ability to intimidate and blackmail Lebanese society.
If so Lebanon might become the first real western-style Arab democracy which would provide a counterpoint for anti-semitic and anti-western prejudices in the region. It might even become a key Israeli ally.
We can but hope.
It's an interesting article but I'm not sure it does justice to the complexity of the subject. It seems to describe the behaviour of non-state actors more than that of the existing arab regimes. Most current Arab leaders do not actually engage in such self-destructive behaviour. Those who did, like Saddam, are no longer around precisely for that reason.
I agree 100% with his conclusion, however, and I think he does provide a very accurate description of the general Arab mentality.
... and I certainly join you in your hope for Lebanon! I really do think we shall see that in our lifetimes, although maybe not just yet
Well, we certainly won't see it if an "immediate ceasefire" is put into place - as hoped for by many local opponents of Israel.
This "immediate ceasefire" will allow Hezbolah to claim a victory - and further stregnthen it in the eyes of the shia population. Lets hope that a ceasefire will only be put into place once hezbollah is severely damaged - then, and only then will we be able to see some sort of long term solution for Lebanon's problems.
.
We work like a horse.
We eat like a pig.
We like to play chicken.
You can get someone's goat.
We can be as slippery as a snake.
We get dog tired.
We can be as quiet as a mouse.
We can be as quick as a cat.
Some of us are as strong as an ox.
People try to buffalo others.
Some are as ugly as a toad.
We can be as gentle as a lamb.
Sometimes we are as happy as a lark.
Some of us drink like a fish.
We can be as proud as a peacock.
A few of us are as hairy as a gorilla.
You can get a frog in your throat.
We can be a lone wolf.
But I'm having a whale of a time!
You have a riveting web log
and undoubtedly must have
atypical & quiescent potential
for your intended readership.
May I suggest that you do
everything in your power to
honor your encyclopedic/omniscient
Designer/Architect as well
as your revering audience.
As soon as we acknowledge
this Supreme Designer/Architect,
Who has erected the beauteous
fabric of the universe, our minds
must necessarily be ravished with
wonder at this infinate goodness,
wisdom and power.
Please remember to never
restrict anyone's opportunities
for ascertaining uninterrupted
existence for their quintessence.
There is a time for everything,
a season for every activity
under heaven. A time to be
born and a time to die. A
time to plant and a time to
harvest. A time to kill and
a time to heal. A time to
tear down and a time to
rebuild. A time to cry and
a time to laugh. A time to
grieve and a time to dance.
A time to scatter stones
and a time to gather stones.
A time to embrace and a
time to turn away. A time to
search and a time to lose.
A time to keep and a time to
throw away. A time to tear
and a time to mend. A time
to be quiet and a time to
speak up. A time to love
and a time to hate. A time
for war and a time for peace.
Best wishes for continued ascendancy,
Dr. Whoami
P.S. One thing of which I am sure is
that the common culture of my youth
is gone for good. It was hollowed out
by the rise of ethnic "identity politics,"
then splintered beyond hope of repair
by the emergence of the web-based
technologies that so maximized and
facilitated cultural choice as to make
the broad-based offerings of the old
mass media look bland and unchallenging
by comparison."
Post a Comment
<< Home