In an interview with The Times, Hezbollah's second in command, Sheikh Naim Qassem, claims that Hezbollah has been preparing for an Israeli offensive for six years: "If it was not for these preparations Lebanon would have been defeated within hours." He also criticized Britain for allowing U.S. weapons bound for Israel to go through London.
Qassem's boss, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, ratcheted up the rhetoric on Saturday, threatening Israel with further rocket attacks. As quoted in Haaretz: "The bombardment of Afula and its military base is the beginning... Many cities in the center [of Israel] will be targeted in the 'beyond Haifa' phase if the savage aggression continues on our country, people and villages." In a speech broadcast on Al-Manar, Hezbollah's television network, he also claimed that Israel is "a slave of the U.S.," that "[t]he enemy [has] attained no military achievements," and that Hezbollah's "strong position" has prompted diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.
On the ground, according to The Jerusalem Post, "[t]he IDF wrapped up its operations in the southern Lebanese village of Bint Jbail on Saturday and withdrew most of its troops from the area". But the offensive will continue: "At the same time, the army [is] gearing up for a new ground incursion into Lebanon." Also, "the IAF struck a road along the Lebanese border with Syria that the IDF said was being used by Damascus to smuggle weapons to Hizbullah".
So where does that leave things?
At Whiskey Bar, Billmon (a critic of the Israeli offensive who nonetheless continues to provide some solid commentary on the conflict) asks whether the withdrawal from Bint Jbail is the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning. It's an interesting post, though I strongly disagree with his claim that "the Anglo-Israeli alliance has committed both a crime and a mistake".
Which brings me to an excellent op-ed on the conflict in Haaretz by the former leader of Germany's Green Party (and former German foreign minister in the Schroeder government), Joschka Fischer:
The current war in Lebanon is not a war by the Arab world against Israel; rather, it is a war orchestrated by the region's radical forces -- Hamas and Islamic Jihad among the Palestinians, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Iran -- which fundamentally reject any settlement with Israel...
Moderate Arab governments understand full well the issue at stake in this war: It is about regional hegemony in the case of Syria with Lebanon and Palestine and, on a wider level, Iran's hegemonic claim to the entire Middle East. Yet the war in Lebanon and Gaza could prove to be a miscalculation for the radicals. By firing missiles on Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, a boundary has been crossed. From now on, the issue is no longer primarily one of territory, restitution or occupation. Instead, the main issue is the strategic threat to Israel's existence.
Precisely. This conflict is primarily about Israel's right to defend itself as a sovereign state. Even more fundamentally, it is about Israel's right to exist. With Hezbollah's arsenal of rockets that can hit targets deep in Israeli territory, and with Hezbollah itself supported by Iran and Syria, one of which is developing a nuclear arsenal, Israel's existence may be more profoundly threatened than ever before.
This is not to excuse some of what Israel has done in the past, nor some of what it continues to do, nor even the military conduct of its current offensive in Lebanon, some of which is questionable, nor to suggest that Israel couldn't do more to promote a healthy, sustainable Palestianian state. It is, however, to emphasize the existential nature of this conflict and its roots.
For Israel, what could possibly be more important than its own existence? It may not always defend itself effectively -- and the offensive in Lebanon may in part have been conducted poorly -- but defend itself it must.
No comments:
Post a Comment