| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| A clear sign of madness |
| 2006-08-12 |
| In December 1968, Israeli commandos destroyed 13 aircraft of Lebanon's national carrier, Middle East Airlines, at Beirut airport. Why? One of the two Palestinians who hijacked an El Al jet five months earlier had lived in Lebanon. The message then was what it would be for the next ten years: Lebanon must disarm the Palestinians. But its fragile government knew that Sunni Muslims, as well as its leftists and Arab nationalists, would resist any attacks on Palestinians. The Palestinians were their defence against the armed Christian establishment. So the Lebanese faced a choice: destruction by Israel or self-destruction through civil war. Lebanon's postponement of a decision cost it dear: years of Israeli artillery fire, commando raids and aerial bombardment that displaced thousands of Shia Muslim villagers from the south to the new slums on Beirut's outskirts. In 1975, civil war finally came, without weakening the Palestinian commandos as Israel had hoped it would. Three years later, Israel attempted to put this right by invading southern Lebanon, but still it failed to disarm the Palestinians. In 1982, it went all the way to Beirut to expel the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Thus, a new enemy was born: Hizballah, who took up arms for the occupied Shiites of the south. Any Israeli soldier who served in Lebanon will tell you that Hezbollah was an adversary more tenacious than the PLO had ever been. It took 18 years and a thousand dead soldiers before Israel conceded defeat and left. Now Israel is back to face down a Hezbollah that would never have existed but for its 1982 invasion. It is a safe bet that Hezbollah will be strengthened by this experience. Its popularity was waning because it supported the Syrian presence in Lebanon when all other Lebanese wanted Syria out. As soon as Syria's last troops departed in April 2005, Hezbollah found itself isolated. It was trying to manoeuvre itself into a better relationship with the other Lebanese, but it had a lot of ground to make up. Now rescue has come in the form of Israel's bombardment. Hezbollah's harshest critics, including many Christians, tell me they are supporting the Shia militia as the only armed force resisting the Israel onslaught. In a way, Israel has made Hezbollah's case against disarmament for it, showing that the Lebanese army cannot protect the country but dedicated guerrillas can fight back. Far from isolating Hezbollah, Israel has simply made its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, the most popular man in the Arab world. Hezbollah started this battle with Israel when it captured two Israeli soldiers - in order to trade them for Lebanese prisoners in Israeli prisons (taken just as illegally over an international border) and to support the Palestinians under attack by Israel in Gaza. Hezbollah's alliance with the Palestinians comes from its roots. Many of its first militants, before they got religion, had been trained by Palestinians. After the PLO left in 1982 and the Palestinians of Lebanon were disarmed, Hezbollah became their primary protector. When another Lebanese Shia Muslim militia, Amal, attacked the Palestinian camps in the mid-1980s, Hezbollah sided with the Palestinians - not only against fellow Shias in Amal but in opposition to its backers in Syria. Only Hezbollah takes up arms on behalf of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, but all of Lebanon is paying for it. Fifty years ago, CIA agents were finding their way in the newly independent Middle East. One of them, Ray Close, has written how his attempt to stage a pro-American coup Damascus in 1957 forced Syria into the Russian embrace. His colleague Wilbur Crane Eveland delivered money to Lebanon's president to rig the 1958 elections; and Archie Roosevelt (son of Theodore) tried to buy Egypt's president, Gamal Abdel Nasser. Eveland's machinations led to the civil war of 1958, and Nasser ridiculed the CIA by spending the bribe money to build a tower in Cairo known universally as Roosevelt's Erection. Close, whose own forebears were missionaries in 19th-century Lebanon, has embraced a new mission: to prevent imperial adventures by the US and its Israeli client that devour the innocent and invariably fail. In a recent open e-mail, Close wrote: "One of the definitions of madness is the repetition countless times of the same action, always expecting a different result. For more than half a century, the Israelis have been applying the tactic of massively disproportionate retaliation to every provocative act of resistance attempted by the Palestinians, expecting every time that this would bring peace and security to all the people of the Holy Land. Every single time they have done this, it has backfired. Every single time [his italics]." Today, Israel is conveying the same message to Lebanon's government as in 1968, 1973, 1978 and 1982: disarm the guerrillas or face destruction. Yet Israel knows that the Lebanese government can no more disarm Hezbollah than it could the PLO. Now, as before, Muslim soldiers would refuse to obey orders to attack their co-religionists, the army would collapse and civil war would follow. Instead, Lebanon is living with the alternative: Israel's annihilation of Beirut airport, the country's road network, telecommunications systems, army bases, water supply and power stations - the entire infrastructure that the country rebuilt when the civil war ended in 1990 - and the slaughter of hundreds so far of its citizens. What will Israel's latest adventure leave in Lebanon apart from angry and unemployed recruits to Hezbollah with new grievances against their neighbours to the south? What reason is there to suppose that the old actions will prompt a different reaction? What is the definition of madness? |
| Posted by:john |
| #11 The real madness underlying our approach to fighting terrorism is the assumption that the terrorists' sponsors can hold us accountable for our foreign policies, but we can't hold them accountable for their terrorist attacks. The reality is that we can hold them accountable - and when we retaliate in a serious manner (i.e. kill significant numbers of people), they back off. The problem is that our leadership isn't wired for retaliation, it's always got be about "a new world order" (Bush I) or "freedom" (Bush II). Thanks to Bush II, we have gotten two democratically-elected Islamist governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What are the odds that elections will continue once GI's depart those respective countries? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-12 22:57 |
| #10 DUH! (Sorry, Fred. You already knew the answer) |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-08-12 22:15 |
| #9 is the answer "B"? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-12 21:12 |
| #8 He's right, like causes have like effects. The question is the verity of the first statement. If the first part of a conditional statement is false, the overall statement is true regardless of the truth of the second. Perfesser, pardon me, but you're an idiot. If any part of a conditional statement is false the entire statement is false. That is a mathematical fact. A-B does not equal A+C if A, B, or C=0 Like causes may have like effects, but more often than not they have dissimilar results. A more efficient statement might have been as follows, A attacks B, B fails to respond in a comprehensive manner and A continues their attacks, C decides that B does not have the resolve to suppress A ruthlessly (enough) and thus begins attacking B as well finally provoking a response from B. At this stage D decides that B's response has been "disproportionate" and that B must acquiesce to A and D's demands and calls for a ceasefire. E, who has been on B's side for quite awhile decides that it doesn't have the stomach to stand up to D, caves in, and forces B into a ceasefire effectively giving A and C a de facto positive resolution to the equation. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-08-12 20:38 |
| #7 ...his attempt to stage a pro-American coup Damascus in 1957 forced Syria into the Russian embrace. I'm sure that the Soviets were just innocently hanging out, doing nothing when Syria just flew into their arms. ZF: It's worse than assuming that everyone else is a static actor. These sorts of arguments presuppose that the US and Israel are the only sources of evil in the world. Everyone else lives in some sort of pre-Edenic paradise and any evil in their society must be caused by some ripple or another of American or Israeli action. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-08-12 19:46 |
| #6 j: There is a tall assumption here that Hezbollah was entirely the fault of the Israel invasion into Lebanon. This isn't just a tall assumption. It's a moronic assumption. Iran has been spending big money mobilizing Shiite terrorist groups throughout the Arab world. The attack on the Mecca's Grand Mosque in 1979 was carried out by Shiites with backing from Iran's mullahs. The problem with doing this in most Arab states is that they had well-organized and centralized security forces that could take down these terrorist movements even in cases where Shiites were the majority. Except in Lebanon, which was overrun with militias and occupied by Syria, which supported whichever terrorist movement would make the most trouble for the Israelis. Which is why Israeli invaded Lebanon. Funny how Charles Glass never mentions Syria's role in supplying both the PLO and Hezbollah as its cat's paw against the other Lebanese factions. But then again, he lives in a fantasy world in which Muslims are the good guys engaged in what he views as a holy jihad against the West. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-12 13:20 |
| #5 "Three years later, Israel attempted to put this right by invading southern Lebanon, but still it failed to disarm the Palestinians. In 1982, it went all the way to Beirut to expel the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Thus, a new enemy was born: Hizballah, who took up arms for the occupied Shiites of the south." There is a tall assumption here that Hezbollah was entirely the fault of the Israel invasion into Lebanon. I might appear that way in hindsight, it is pure speculation unless one can show that warnings of this were issued prior to the invasion, any more than it is pure speculation to suggest Hezbollah would not have been created to counter the Palestinian influence in Lebanon. We knew there was a Sunni Shiite schism in Iraq. Did we know how that would react in 2003? In hindsight, yes, but at the time, no. Can we extract in either Lebanon or Iraq how much of this unrest is the work of third party outsiders who would be active no matter what Israel or the US does today or did do in the past? It is a valuable discussion but placing blame in hindsight is just superficial. |
| Posted by: john 2006-08-12 12:29 |
| #4 He's right, like causes have like effects. The question is the verity of the first statement. If the first part of a conditional statement is false, the overall statement is true regardless of the truth of the second. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-08-12 11:52 |
| #3 I think the fundamental problem with Charles Glass's analysis is that he views military prowess and endurance in battle by upstart forces as evidence of justifiable and righteous grievances. The reality is that military prowess has nothing to do with the justice of a cause, underdog or otherwise. Genghis Khan wasn't any better or worse than the potentates of the gigantic powers surrounding Mongolia. He was just a better military leader than they were. The Chinese weren't uniquely oppressed or poor as people go when the Communists took over. The PLA was just stronger than Kuomintang forces, which had been shattered fighting a long, exhausting war against the Japanese. The fact is that a war is a contest between two sets of leaderships and peoples. Israel could not prevail in Lebanon because its people (and by extension, its leadership, since Israel is a democracy) were weak, not because Hezbollah was some invincible force given strength by justifiable grievances. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-12 11:38 |
| #2 After the PLO left in 1982 and the Palestinians of Lebanon were disarmed... hmmmm...then who's shooting all the weapons (small and heavy) in Ein El-Hellhole? I call BS. Also, the Leb prisoners "illegally" transferred across national borders? If Lebanon were to actually, say PUNISH, criminals, perhaps the Jooooos wouldn't have Lebs in their jails. Nice moral equivalence. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-12 11:05 |
| #1 Hezbollah exists because of Iran. Period. Poor Lebanese Shiites can't support a terrorist group. Without Iran, no Hezbollah. And who brought Islamist Iran into existence? We have Jimmy Carter to thank. Charles Glass seems to think that Muslims are a bunch of noble savages provoked by an evil West into righteous responses. The reality is that there are a lot of poor people in the world. Most of them aren't terrorists. What Muslims are doing isn't all that new - it's an attempt to exact tribute by means of carefully applied violence. Muhammad himself showed the way by organizing a bunch of caravan bandits into one of the largest empires the world has seen. These guys are just trying to expand the realm of Islamic empire and exact tribute from the non-Muslim rabble. Glass seems to think that Muslims are static actors responding to what the West does. The reality is that they are dynamic actors working to reshape the world in their image. Inside every Muslim isn't a Charles Glass struggling to get out. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-08-12 11:04 |