Q & A: The 15th Day
By Uri Avnery, 26.7.06
·
Who is winning this war?
On the 15th day of the
war, Hizbullah is functioning and fighting. That by itself will go down in the
annals of the Arab peoples as a shining victory.
When a featherweight
boxer faces a heavyweight and is still standing in the 15th round - that is a
victory, whatever the final outcome.
·
Can Hizbullah be pushed
out of the border area?
The question is based on
a misunderstanding of the essence of Hizbullah.
Not by accident is the
organization call Hizb-Allah ("Party of Allah") and not Jeish-Allah
("Army of Allah"). It is a political organization, with deep roots in
the Shiite population of South Lebanon.
For all practical purposes, it represents this community. The Shiites
are 40% of the Lebanese population, and together with the other Muslims they
form the majority.
Hizbullah can be
"moved" only if the whole Shiite population is moved - an ethnic
cleansing that (I hope) no one is thinking about. After the war the population
will return to their towns and villages, and Hizbullah will continue to
flourish.
·
What would happen if the
Lebanese Army were deployed along the border?
That has been one of the
slogans of the Israeli government from the first moment. They will announce this
as the main victory. That is very convincing - for anyone who has no idea about
the complexities of Lebanon.
Anyone who was in Lebanon in 1982 and saw the
Lebanese Army in action knows that it is not a serious army. Furthermore, many
of its officers and soldiers are Shiites. Such a force will not fight
Hizbullah.
Its deployment in the
South would depend entirely on the agreement of Hizbullah - and that also
applies to every day it stays there.
·
Would an international
force help?
Ditto. That is a slogan
especially tailored for diplomats, who look for an idea they can easily agree
on. It sounds nice, especially if one adds the word "robust".
What exactly is the
robust international force supposed to do?
It is proposed that it
will remove Hizbullah from the border area. Not by words - like the hapless
UNIFIL, that everyone ignored right from the beginning - but by force.
If the deployment of
this force were to take place with the agreement of both sides - Israel and
Hizbullah - alright. It may serve as a ladder for the Israeli government to
climb down from the tree it has climbed up.
But if the force is
placed there contrary to the will of Hizbullah, a guerilla war against it will
start. Will the international force stand up and fight in a place which the
mighty Israeli army fled with its tail between its legs?
For Israel, there will
be a special dilemma: what will happen if Hizbullah attacks Israel in spite of
the force? Will the Israeli army enter the area, risking a clash with the
international force? With German soldiers, for example?
·
Olmert has said that we
will not negotiate with Syria. Is that practical?
So he said. He has said a lot of things, and his tongue
is still wagging.
Syria is a central
player in this field. No real settlement in Lebanon will succeed without the
participation - direct or indirect- of Syria.
True, Hizbullah was
created by us. When the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in 1982, the Shiites
received the soldiers with rice and sweets. They hoped that we would evict the PLO
forces, who were in control of the area. But when they realized that our army
was there to stay, they started a guerilla war that lasted for 18 years. In
this war, Hizbullah was born and grew, until it became the strongest
organization in all Lebanon.
But this would not have
happened without massive Syrian support. Syria wants to get back the Golan
heights, which have been officially annexed to Israel. Therefore, it is
important for the Syrians not to allow the Israelis any quiet. Since they do
not want to risk trouble on their own borders with Israel, they use Hizbullah
to cause trouble on Israel's border with Lebanon.
The Lebanese border will
not become quiet until we reach an agreement with Syria. That is to say: until
we give the Golan back.The alternativeis to start a war with Syria, with its
ballistic missiles, chemical and biological weapons and an army that has proved
itself. President Bush is pushing Israel to do this, perhaps in order to divert
attention from his fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
·
How can one evaluate the
conduct of the military campaign?
Dan Halutz will not
enter the history books as one of the greatest captains of all time.
He pushed the government
into this war, partly in order to cover up two embarrassing military failures:
the Palestinian commando action in Kerem Shalom and the Hizbullah action on the
Lebanese border. No officer has been called to bear responsibility for them.
The ultimate responsibility rests, of course, with the chief-of-Staff.
Halutz, the first Chief-of-Staff
who rose through the ranks of the Air Force, was convinced that he could finish
it off by aerial bombardment, with the assistance of the artillery and navy. He
was vastly mistaken. Even after sowing havoc in Lebanon, he did not succeed in
vanquishing the opponent. Now he is compelled to do the one thing that
everybody was afraid of: sending large land forces into the Lebanese quagmire.
On the 15th day of the
war, not one of the aims is any nearer to being achieved. As far as Halutz is
concerned, both as a strategist and as a commander, his marks are close to
zero.
·
Have the civilians at
the head of the government proved themselves?
After the elections,
many people in Israel thought that a civilian era had begun, since both the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense are complete civilians, without a
military background. As it turns out, the opposite is the case.
History shows that
political functionaries who succeed strong leaders are capable of doing
terrible things. They want to prove that they, too, are strong leaders, that
they have guts, that they can wage war. Harry Truman , who replaced Franklin
Roosevelt, is responsible for what is perhaps the biggest war crime in history
- the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anthony Eden, who succeeded Winston
Churchill, started the foolish Suez war, in collusion with France and Israel.
The Olmert government
started this war in shocking irresponsibility, without serious debate or
deliberation. They were afraid to oppose the demands of the Chief-of-Staff,
afraid to be branded as cowards.
·
Olmert has promised that
after the war the situation in the region will be different from what it was
before. Is there a chance of this?
Absolutely. But the new
situation will be very much worse for us.
One of Hassan
Nasrallah's aims is to unite Shiites and Sunnis in a common fight against
Israel.
One has to realize that
for centuries Sunnis and Shiites were mortal enemies. Many orthodox Sunnis
consider the Shiites heretics. By coming to the aid of the Palestinians, who
are Sunnis, Nasrallah hopes, among other aims, to forge a new alliance.
In the Middle East, a
new axis may be coming into being, one that includes Hizbullah, the
Palestinians, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Syria is a Sunni country. Iraq is now
controlled by the Shiites, who wholeheartedly support Hizbullah. But the Iraqi
Sunnis, who are waging a tough guerilla war against the Americans, also support
Hizbullah.
This bloc enjoys a wide
popularity among the masses throughout the Arab world, because of their fight
against the USA and Israel. The opposite bloc, which includes Saudi Arabia,
Egypt and Jordan, is losing popularity by the day. These regimes are considered
by the masses as mercenaries of the Americans and agents of Israel. Mahmoud
Abbas is strenuously trying to avoid being included in this category.
·
So what can be done
about this?
To put an end to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which causes ferment throughout the Middle East.
To draw Hamas out of
this hostile front, by negotiating with the elected Palestinian government.
To reach a settlement in
Lebanon. For it to last, this settlement must include Hizbullah and Syria. This
will oblige us to give the Golan back.
It should be remembered
that Ehud Barak had already agreed to that and almost signed a peace treaty,
similar to the one signed with Egypt, but unfortunately chickened out at the
last moment for fear of public opinion.