Outside of Israel, almost everyone who supports further Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank also seems to support an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, before Israeli is able to deal Hezbollah a decisive blow. But do these positions in fact go together? There is a strong case that they are actually at cross-purposes with each other. If you really want Israel to withdraw from more of the West Bank and allow the establishment of a Palestinian state, you should hope that the Israelis defeat Hezbollah as decisively as possible.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima Party won the Israeli elections earlier this year on a platform calling for continued unilateral withdrawals from Palestinian territories, similar to last year's withdrawal from Gaza and the 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Olmert and Kadima assured the Israeli public that the withdrawals would enhance Israeli security (or at leat not harm it) and increase the chances for a permanent peace.
If, however, further withdrawal means that land is turned over to terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah who will then use it to launch more attacks on Israeli civilians, Israeli support for the Olmert-Kadima strategy will evaporate. This is especially likely if the terrorists can use the newly acquired land to launch their attacks, but Israel is prevented from responding effectively by pressure from the "international community," much of which is now trying to accomplish exactly that by calling for a ceasefire. Most of the Israeli public is willing to accept "land for peace;" that is one of the reasons why Kadima won the election. But they aren't going to accept land for missiles.
Dovish Israelis understand this dynamic, which is why most of them support the current offensive against Hezbollah. Consider this article in the left-wing Israeli publication Haaretz, describing the views of the Four Mothers, a group of women peace activists whose sons were killed in Lebanon and whose agitation for Israeli withdrawals played a key role in persuading the government to remove its forces from Lebanon in 2000. Here is a telling quote by Zohara Antebi, one of the Four Mothers:
So if you are saying now that I was wrong when I believed that it would be possible to ensure far fewer casualties and far more quiet after leaving Lebanon, you're right. I was wrong. I'm afraid of those who are incapable of saying 'I was wrong' in the first person. I lived on the border, in Malkiya, and I saw the small tobacco plots of the farmers in southern Lebanon, and I believed that prosperity on both sides of the border would ensure quiet. That Nasrallah would aspire for his people to have a good life. In that I was wrong. I was definitely wrong . . .
[T]here is now no choice. Now we have to change the diskette. This time we are fighting for our home. This time we are fighting so that we will have lives here.
The other three leaders of the Four Mothers still believe that the 2000 withdrawal was the right decision at the time, but they too support Israel's military effort today. Indeed, they seem to recognize that withdrawal can only be justified to the Israeli public if it permits Israel to retain a free hand in responding to terrorist attacks from the territories in question. As Bruria Sharon [no relation to Ariel], one of the other Mothers, puts it:
[B]eing out of Lebanon makes it possible for us to mount this strong response. When we were in Lebanon we could not respond like this, because then we were occupiers, whereas now we are just. Today we are fighting for our home from within the international border.
If Bruria Sharon is proven wrong and the international community forces a ceasefire on Israel anyway, it is unlikely that she would support future withdrawals. More importantly, neither will the vast majority of the Israeli public who are more skeptical of the "peace process" than the Four Mothers are.
For another prominent Israeli dove taking a similar view, see this op ed by famous Israeli novelist and peace activist Amos Oz. And, of course, it's worth mentioning that Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz is the leader of very left-wing and dovish Labor Party. If Israel is forced to stop short of victory, Peretz and his party (which is more dovish than Olmert) will be even more discredited than Kadima.
Left-wing Israeli supporters of withdrawal are not the only ones drawing such conclusions. So too are their right-wing, anti-withdrawal domestic opponents. Consider this statement by Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, the most prominent opponent of further Israeli withdrawals:
What will help the Likud [politically] is that after the fighting stops, people will assess what the Likud said about the effects of unilateral disengagement and what other parties said, and then they will come to the right conclusions.
Bibi and the Likud, of course, argued from the beginning that Israeli withdrawals would stimulate terrorism and that the international community would not give Israel any more latitude to respond than it has in the past. If Israel is forced to stand down before achieving a clear victory, Bibi will be the big winner politically. Even if Olmert and Kadima are able to stay in power, they will have to change their policies. Further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank will be highly unlikely, to say the least. Those who truly want to see Israel withdraw from all or most of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state should hope that Israel wins as big a victory as possible. And should oppose any ceasefire arrangements that prevent that.
UPDATE: Co-blogger David Bernstein asks (by e-mail): "[A]re there left-wing types outside of Israel who were critical of Israel in the past who are supporting Israel in Lebanon on the grounds you suggested?" A good question to which I do not know the answer. If there are readers who do know of relevant examples, feel free to point them out in the comments.
Or at least that's the impression that I get.
There is also the distinct possibility that if Israel overplays its hand, this may well have extremely negative consequences outside of Isreal and Lebanon.
In my opinion, the Israel supporters among you who also consider yourselves American will soon have to decide to whom you owe the greater allegiance: Israel or the United States?
Because I get the feeling that the interests of the two are about to come squarely into conflict.
By most estimates, Hezbollah has only a few thousand fighters. If Israel kills, captures, or expels most of them, it will be very difficult for Hezbollah to reconstitute its forces, perhaps impossible. Regarding new recruits, I doubt many people will want to join a group that has just suffered a crushing defeat and has proven unable to keep Israeli troops out of its heartland. As Osama Bin Laden famously put it, people tend to follow the "strong horse" rather than the weak one, and if the Israelis are allowed to destroy most of Hezbollah's forces, Hezb will be perceived as a weak horse and discredited.
Similarly, if Israeli forces seal off the Syrian border, Iran will not be able to resupply Hezbollah (though resupply will not be important anyway, if there isn't much Hezbollah left to resupply).
Regarding Shiites from "all over the world," there is no evidence that any significant number of non-Lebanese Shiites have joined Hezbollah or are likely to do so in the future (especially if Hezbollah suffers a crushing defeat).
Finally, Mr. Atma's implicit accusation of dual loyalty is beneath contempt. I profess no "allegiance" to Israel, beyond the support which I would give to any liberal democratic state under attack by a vicious terrorist group.
Nice thought-provoking post.
No doubt the main thrust of the post is correct - that the incursion is necessary as a matter of internal Israeli electoral politics. As to whether this *justifies* it, or whether Americans (which I assume most of us are) should care, that seems like a different story. The press is full of reports about rage in "the Arab street" at Israel, and I don't think many of us would say this justifies the relevant governments in acting out that rage.
"Bomb them until they stop hating us" doesn't seem likely to be a successful strategy. I can't think of a better one, though. Sad.
First, it is unlikely that Israel will accomplish that much against the Hezbollah infrastructure. Every military force sends its cannon fodder into the fight, and keeps the leadership safe so that it can reconstitute the fighting forces with fresh recruits. Israel might kill a lot of foot soldiers, but they won't dent the higher command levels.
Second, if people won't join a losing cause, then how come the Palestinians keep fighting? They've been beaten over and over again, and they just keep coming back. Moreover, your suggestion that Hezbollah fighters are only Lebanese Shiites seems way off the mark to me. Muslim fighters are a cosmopolitan bunch. In Afghanistan, the mujahadeen had lots of foreigners; in Chechnya, the proportion of foreigners is lower but still undeniable. Iraq has its share of foreign fighters. Iran has had lots of public demonstrations in which young men publicly vow to go to Lebanon to fight. Your Western intuitions in this case don't fit the Islamic reality.
(I'm not saying they do or they don't, but that vow seems easier to make than to fulfill.)
This gets to the heart of the matter, but I don't think Israel has the resources to occupy Lebanon. That's why they left after the first time around...it was bleeding them dry. It's a real mess and I don't know what the answer is, but I can't imagine that anything good can come of a cease fire.
Of course Hezbollah wants a cease fire...they are at the height of their power and can only suffer depredations henceforth. Hezbollah is the classic underdog. The longer they hang around, the more sympathy they garner. A quick KO would be in everyone's best interests.
they've never been beaten- the west always sets up cease-fires, accords, negotiations, confrences, oslos, ad nauseum. the palestinians have always used these situations to re-man, re-arm, and re-fund; and of course they never have any intention of honoring any agreements.
their stated purpose is to drive the Israelis into the sea, to annihilate the Israelis, to wipe Israel off the map. anytime killing them ceases, they are winning.
can they be beaten? no one has ever tried to carry winning to it's end.
Leaders without foot soldiers are not much good. Moreover, what makes you think that the Israelis can't kill many of the leaders too? They have very good intelligence and have succeeded in killing off many of the top leaders of Palestinian terrorist groups. If I were Nasrallah, I wouldn't feel too safe.
Second, if people won't join a losing cause, then how come the Palestinians keep fighting? They've been beaten over and over again, and they just keep coming back. .
Palestinian terrorism has enabled them to get worldwide attention and sympathy and a quasi-state in the West Bank and Gaza. That gives them (or at least their leaders and a significant number of followers) strong incentives to keep at it.
I suspect that the situation would be very different if the Israelis and the West had not allowed them to achieve these successes. However, it is noteworthy that Palestinian terrorism has greatly diminished infrequency since the Israeli "Defensive Shield" operation in 2002 and the construction of the security fence.
As for this just being a matter of "Western intuitions" that don't fit "Islamic reality," recall that the theory people following a "Strong Horse" that I mentioned in my earlier comment comes from a famous statement by Bin Laden.
Most of the people who stayed in the Labor Party after Kadima was formed last year are in fact very left-wing. Many of the moderates joined Kadima along with former Labor Party PM Shimon Peres (who is now part of Olmert's government).
Military organizations are designed to operate even as they lose people. The foot soldiers are the most replaceable. It is likely that the Hezbollah logistical tail extends back to Iran. Recruits are sent to training camps in Lebanon, possibly Syria, probably Iran, and when they are ready they are fed into the battle. The officers stay further back.
The Israeli intelligence successes have taken place in the context of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. They have agents and informers in those places. Their intelligence operation in Lebanon is much weaker and during actual combat operations it's much more difficult to identify C3 installations, especially because Hezbollah doesn't rely on electronic communications -- they use old-fashioned runners.
The notion that Israel will seriously injure Hezbollah is wishful thinking. When this is over, Hezbollah will still be there, they'll rebuild, and in a few years we'll be right back where we were one month ago.
they're having their first populist uprising, and nobody knows what to make of it. The Israeli people have gotten involved and are bashing their government right and left - in particular, they are bashing Prime Minister Olmert who is performing a most excellent "deer-in-the-headlights" Dan Quayle imitation.
Times of London:
Israeli Prime Minister Olmert hasn't given up on the pre-Hezbollah war political paradigm. He continues to emit whoppers - such as saying that he'd pull out of the West Bank:
only to be immediately hammered and recant:
The Israeli people flipped their government three times in 48 hours, one of which seems to set a new record - four hours from unfortunate statement by Mr. Big to eating his own words.
I can't emphasize enough the revolutionary effects of this new resolve of the Israeli people. When it comes to straight power, they win and we win. The only limitations on Israeli action concerning the Arabs, and on our actions in the war on terror, have been self-imposed. Few understand the degree to which Israeli action against the Arabs has been limited by the wish-fulfillment desires for peace by the Israeli people - almost everyone outside Israel has simply assumed, incorrectly, that those limitations were imposed by so-called world opinion, or American pressure. That just wasn't true.
Given the will to win, any military conflict with our respective enemies will resemble a puppy being smacked by a truck.
The Israeli government now has the domestic support to utterly eliminate Hezbollah. The government does not seem to understand this - they keep trying to act as though this populist uprising hasn't occurred - American politicians would by now have run in front of popular demand, as Congressional Democrats did on the Dubai ports deal.
It remains to be seen whether the Israeli people will stay focused enough to keep forcing their backsliding, cold-footed, government to chase Hezbollah into the Bekka Valley and eliminate it there. The enemy has a vote in this - Iranian agents in Hezbollah may start putting chemical warheads on the rockets &missiles fired into Israel.
Of course the Israelis occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years, had numerous Lebanese allies (far more than in the West Bank), and surely still have "agents and informers" there. I am by no means an expert on Israeli intelligence, but I see no reason to believe that they are much worse off in Lebanon than on the West Bank.
Finally, I should reiterate that, at least as far as is known, virtually all Hezbollah personnel are Lebanese and were recruited and trained in Lebanon. If the Israelis destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure and kill or capture most of the footsoldiers and leaders, it will be very hard for Hezbollah to reconstitute itself, especially if the Israelis don't give them a 6 year lull in which to do so, as occurred in 2000-2006.
The real thrust of this essay is that the political conditions in Israel have changed in a direction inimical to peace. That is, the Israeli body politic has lost all interest in peace; they want victory. And of course victory is beyond Israeli capacity. Thus, the Israeli body politic is now just about as irrational as the Palestinian body politic, and the two sides have now reached the point in the cycle of violence where there is no longer any internal retarding force. This suggests that we can expect an orgy of violence on both sides. Usually these things go into a runaway mode where the casualties climb up into the thousands or tens of thousands before the taste of blood turns sour in everybody's mouth.
In any event, it is now clear that the only hope of peace in the Middle East is by means of a settlement imposed upon both sides by the international community led by America.
Oslo anyone? What! No takers!
I suppose that some think of a cease-fire as a benefit to Israel. It is not. Desire for it is only a repetition of Cynthia Ozick's article in November 1974 Esquire:
"All the world wants the Jews dead."
was defeating the japanese in 1945 genocide?
the germans, genocide?
southern whites in 1865, genocide?
is "palestinian" a racial group? if it is, can they be charged with the racially motivated annihilation of Israel?
wars are won by depleting your enemy of supplies, material, and manpower. or any one or combination of the three.
limited war, limited results. is there anything other than face value to be taken from "wipe off the map"?
you can leave the gas chamber remarks to the sophomoric.
Congratulations on your blinding flash of insight.
With the passage of time, the Muslim nations will surely obtain nuclear weapons. This may take decades, but the end result is a certainty. If a state of war continues in the Middle East, then we will surely see the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. It will be very difficult to confine this nuclear exchange to the Middle East; the end result will likely be the detonation of nuclear weapons on US soil.
You are resigned to this result?
The endemic violence in the Middle East is almost entirely due to the psychotic disfunctional Arab culture. Israel is merely an excuse.
We are doing something about it. Here's the grand strategy. Some have twigged onto the messier aspects of it.
As a practical matter, the Arabs will slaughter themselves - mutual genocide. We'll do only a fraction of it ourselves.
What is really driving the problem is the Arabs' oil income. It lets them export their endemic civil war. Unearned income from oil is a problem for every undeveloped country - it is a golden shackle holding them to their past. Mexico is a perfect example of this for a non-Muslim country.
The Arabs will lose almost all their oil income when the Saud regime collapses. Then we'll implement our long-standing plans to take over the Saudi oil fields. What the U.S. government is not prepared for is that the tidal wave of refugees from Saudi Arabia will destroy all the Persian Gulf oil shiekdoms - the United Arab Emirates, Quatar &Bahrain, etc. We'll end up controlling those too.
At that point we'll have a government that realizes that we can't let the Arabs continue to control their oil income - they'll just use it to fund terrorism against us in the Gulf and elsewehere.
So yes, the U.S. does have plans, but the critical parts will be driven by expediency after the Saud regime collapses.
Yes, they have already occupied these lands but I doubt they did so as firmly as the allies did after WWII. I suspect we took a very hard line on german resistance after WWII. Given the millions who had just died I suspect a few casualties amoung german civilians who were sympathetic to the resistance wouldn't have even been noticed.
As this example demonstrates it is possible to use fear and intimidation (in concert with carrots for good behavior) to stop resistance movements. After WWII I suspect most german citizens had their spirit broken and were too afraid to support resistance. Such a result could likely be achieved in gaza and the west bank as well but I think the cost would be too high.
Killing a few people or making life a little tough is just going to enrage palestinians. In order to actually break them and occupy the area you would need to inflict serious penalties on the community for every act of rebellion, e.g., what the romans did to the israelites when they occupied the place.
It is possible and wouldn't require mass genocide but it would require coldly killing thousands of civilians to punish them for supporting terror. Thus I think this route is not the right way to go down but it did seem to work in Syria. It is my understanding that after an episode of muslim extremism they used artillery on the entire big city they had come from and this extreme response pretty effectively shut down support for anti-regeme extremists.
America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. The United States will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.
That doesn't sound anything like what you are recommending. Could you clarify whether you are promulgating the White House strategy or something more aggressive?
LogicNazi, you write, I suspect we took a very hard line on german resistance after WWII. The historical record is that there was no resistance to the Allies after the surrender in either Japan or Germany. In Japan it was because the Emperor himself declared that Japan must surrender to the Americans, and the Japanese obeyed. In Germany it was because all the diehards tried to resist the American and British drive across Germany once the Rhine was breached, and were all killed. The Allies, especially the Americans, came as invaders and quickly transformed into liberators. The people of Germany were in a very bad way, and the Americans set to work immediately to alleviate their suffering. It was not harshness that won over the Germans, it was American charity. The Marshall Plan played a major role in all this.
Contrast this experience with the Soviet experience in Eastern Europe. The Soviets applied your recommendation to rule with an iron hand. They were brutal with their subject populations. As a consequence, there were a series of revolts against them over the years, all of which had to be put down with force. The Soviets managed to maintain formal control over their Eastern European subjects, but they knew that their control was superficial. And in fact, in the long run it was the Soviets, not the Eastern Europeans, who finally gave up because they couldn't sustain the effort, at which point the Eastern Europeans joyously threw off the Soviet yoke.
What you recommend for the Israelis is something similar to what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe. If the Soviets ultimately failed, why do you think the Israelis will be successful?
I suspect the israeli milatary leaders have no illusions that this brief incursion can do more than temporarily disrupt Hezbollah. The likely goal is to weaken Hezbollah enough and create enough public pressure in lebanon against more cross border attacks that a multi-national peacekeeping force can disarm them or at least keep them from the border.
Given this understanding it makes perfect sense to favor a ceasefire ASAP so long as it includes real peacekeeping forces (not blue helmets). Yes israel needs to succeed in reducing the Hezbollah threat but the best way to do this is to get capable international forces in their as quickly as possible. Israel can't say this since it is their very intention to keep attacking until something is done about Hezbollah that will cause a substantive peacekeeping force (not the crap their now) to be deployed.
my answer is
1)it isn't genocide
2)they are those who want to "wipe them off the map", and no one forces them to think that way. they coose to, and if they choose to fight to the last man, who is forcing them to?
3)I mean kill so many as to end it decisively, of which my main point was it's never gone the distance to reach that point, in fact, I would put forth that the palestinians rely on the cease-fires and negotiations as part of their strategy as they further gain what they are after.
war is about killing. if you want a no-fault war, you can't have one. if you want a perfectly executed military campaign, no such thing exists. if you want a diversified enemy, you don't have one in this situation. to not engage them for fear of genocide being cried is fatal.
and if you want to spell "choose", you don't leave the "h" out.
PIMF
You're being coy about how many people you are willing to kill to achieve your objective. Your answer amounts to "as many as it takes to end it decisively" -- but you haven't specified what you believe this number to be. What if it takes 2 million dead to end this decisively? I gather that you have no qualms about slaughter on such a scale.
The problem with such a bloodthirsty strategy is that it can't work. Suppose that the Israelis were to cut loose and start slaughtering Muslims. That kind of slaughter will motivate Muslims all over the world, and all the civilized nations (save perhaps the USA) to impose total sanctions on Israel. If such sanctions remained in place more than a few months, the Israeli economy would collapse. Recognizing this reality, Israel would be forced to abandon its efforts, and would end up worse off than before.
So Erasmussimo a central point of yours seems to be that Hezbollah is undefeatable. Would you agree that if this is at least partially correct it's because Hezbollah has come up with a winning combination for fighting Israel: status of non-state combatants, strong outside logistical support, and reliance on human shields. If Hezbollah lacked any of these 3 characteristics, Israel could defeat them easily.
If this is so, will you just come out and say that you believe Israel should just sit there and absorb whatever Hezbollah/Iran decides to throw at it?
Also: your inflammatory language suggests that you would have some sympathy with the people who use "Likud" like it's a dirty word. Did you in the past argue that Israel should simply withdraw unilaterally from Lebanon and from the West Bank/Gaza and then peace would be at hand? Many of the people who said this are now seeing the rockets being fired but refuse to admit their error.
I suggest that you compare the Hezbollah success with the success of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The two situations are quite similar: a powerful conventional force fighting against guerrillas supplied by foreigners. The mujahadeen forced the Soviets to retreat and, in the long run, Hezbollah will do the same to the IDF.
will you just come out and say that you believe Israel should just sit there and absorb whatever Hezbollah/Iran decides to throw at it?
No, because that would be stupid. I am not so limited in imagination as to assume that Israel faces two and only two choices: total war or total surrender.
You refer to my inflammatory language. Please cite particular examples of such inflammatory language so that I may properly apologize.
You are welcome to examine my past proposals for how Israel should deal with its problems; you can find them in a number of places on this website.
We're talking about the Middle East. The Israelis don't have to do anything to Lebanese Shia. That's what the Shia's loving neighbors are for. After Israel eliminates the Shiite's regime and armed forces, i.e., Hezbollah, Lebanese Christians, Sunni Muslims, Druze, etc., will do what comes naturally in the Middle East.
Ask Iraq's Sunni Arabs, aka Baathists, about that. They started a war of extermination which they are losing. Their proportion of Iraq's population has dropped from 22-25k% before our invasion to about 15% now, and seems headed for 5% or less. Only a few have been murdered by Shiite and Kurdish death squads. Most have fled to Syria and Jordan.
The same will happen to Lebanon's Shia when Hezbollah is gone.
This isn't something I can give you examples on, for obvious reasons.