Israel: What Now? (Part deux)
MJ Rosenberg makes an interesting, but flawed, observation about the situation in the aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon war:
[Hezballah] is much more like the Irish Republican Army and its political wing Sinn Fein, which so many Americans supported for so long in their fight against the British. This organization used terrorist methods, but it was also a political force with massive political support in its own community and beyond.Well, I can't be the first one to point out the Israeli and British positions are not at all equivalent. England is not surrounded by hostile states. Nor are there regular calls for the eradication of England from the map of Europe. And as far as money and weaponry are concerned, perhaps YOU can fill in the following blank, because I certainly cannot: "Iran is to Hezballah what --- is to the IRA." Fact is, the two situations are not the same at all. The Israelis do not have the luxury that the British did.The suggestion that the British could have “eliminated” or even “disarmed” the IRA by bombing, raiding or occupying the Irish Republic was always self-evidently ludicrous. Such actions would only have enormously increased the IRA’s power, menace and influence.
Instead, the end of IRA terrorism was achieved only through a long and arduous negotiating process involving concessions by both sides and the progressive integration of the IRA and its constituents into the Northern Irish state.
That doesn't stop Rosenberg from spinning a fanciful solution to the problems that Israel faces:
the international community, led by Europe, should step up with really serious guarantees of Israel’s security.Like THAT's going to happen, right?
These should include in the short term a large-scale peacekeeping force for southern Lebanon to protect northern Israel from attacks by Hizbollah. In the longer term a much larger force should be made available as part of a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, to ensure that a Palestinian state will not be made a base for aggression against Israel.Isn't this what Oslo was about? That worked out well.
Ideally, this should form part of a process by which both Israel and this Palestinian state should eventually be invited to join both NATO and the European Union.Right. And I should get free beer and pretzels.
But wait, it gets worse:
For any of this to happen, however, Israel has to be prepared to negotiate regionally and internationally acceptable agreements with its neighbors; and it has to do so simultaneously, as part of one giant package.So it's up to Israel. All of Europe, all of the Arab world, the entire "international community" is waiting for Israel to fall into line, THEN all will be assured.
This is the sort of thing that happens to the losing party after a major war. Is that how people see Israel now -- that it lost a major war?
If so, where were these people after the 6-Day War? Never mind. I know where they were: nowhere. Israel kicked Arab ass and captured territory. Then, over the next 40 years, the same regional and international community players demanded that the winner cooperate in order to guarantee peace.
So, let's summarize: If you are Israel, and you win a war, you will be hounded until you settle for peace. And if you lose a war, you will be hounded until you settle for peace. In the meantime, your adversaries, the ones who want you wiped off the map, will have the support of the regional and international community, win or lose.
Really there is no modern analogy for Hezbollah. Or for the IRA either.
When I think historically of well armed and disciplined militant non-state sanctioned, popularly supported, quasi-offical rebel organizations who were able to garner real political influence towards a separatist goal I draw a blank -- since our Revolution that is. And that only works if you consider the separatist agenda of Hamas as coinciding with Hezbollah's desire to eliminate Israel. I don't consider Israel a colonial power either, so neither ours nor Mexico's revolutions work.
The French Revolution and countless civil wars don't fit the bill either. I'm sure some military historian knows the answer, but IRA ain't it.
As a resistence struggle against occupiers, the IRA analogy has some merit in the way you approach settlement, but neither the strategic goals nor tactical situation of any of the parties coincide.
Our "Indian" Wars might have been more apropos the military dynamic, a technologically advanced power in the midst of enemies who consider them usurpers -- if only some other power were arming the Apache and Souix.
Any way you slice it, however, while what Rosenberg seems to be saying is naive. The approach isn't crazy. I don't think that peaceful coexistence will be brought about by direct use of force, per se -- rather through negotiation -- but this latest round didn't necessarily injure Israel's deterrent threat, which is an essential ingredient.
There is something to be learned when someone is willing to use a sledghammer to swat flies. You may not get too many dead flies, but someone might think that it's cost efficient to buy you a better screen door, or wash the fly attracting stink off themselves before knocking next time.
Likewise, the Israelis know that Hezbollah will be even tougher next time, and half-measures will not be tolerated by the Israeli electorate. Knowing this, the other side just might blink. Peace, after all, is in everyone's interest -- unless you own a lot of Halliburton stock.