Posted on 07/24/2006 5:57:57 AM PDT by SJackson
In focusing on Israel, New Delhi is missing the point that Hezbollah is a force of extremism and misadventure, backed only by Syria and Iran
While much of India’s attention is devoted “excessive and disproportionate military retaliation by Israel which has targeted civilian infrastructure” as portrayed by the official statement, the ongoing violence in West Asia is far more complicated than normally recognised. The crisis underscores the perennial Lebanon struggle for independence and sovereignty not only vis-a-vis its power neighbours but also vis-a-vis militant groups inside.
Hezbollah, the Party of God, precipitated the crisis by ambushing and kidnapping soldiers from inside the Israeli territory partly to ward off attempts by the Beirut government to disarm the militants. Its volley of rocket and missile attacks deep into Israel exhibited not only its military capabilities but also its willingness to take political risks against possible Israeli retaliation. In this asymmetrical conflict Israel is fighting a military group that operates independent of the central authority in Lebanon.
By taking on Israel and its might, Hezbollah seeks to portray itself as a resistance force and thereby throttle any move by the Lebanese authority to exercise complete control over the southern part of the country, the traditional stronghold of Hezbollah. Even the resolution of the UN Security Council calling for the disarming of all militant groups remains on paper.
This defiance by the Hezbollah comes into conflict with the interest of Lebanon, which in the past endured the consequences of such adventures. At one level, the government of Fouad Siniora claimed it was not involved in the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers that precipitated the current crisis. At the same time, the international community cannot ignore that Hezbollah lawmaker Mohammed Fneish holds the Energy portfolio. In short, while Hezbollah is part of the government, Prime Minister Siniora was not party to Hezbollah’s actions against Israel!
This squarely puts Hezbollah at odds with the Lebanese government and Israel seeks to capitalise on the internal tensions within Lebanon. Through its massive retaliation against that country, it hopes to turn the Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims and Druze of Lebanon against the pre-dominantly Shia Hezbollah. In other words, while the entire country suffers from the ongoing violence, the interests of Hezbollah and the non-Shia population of Lebanon are not co-terminus.
At another level, the conflict also exhibits the inability of the Lebanese government to exercise complete control over its territory. For nearly three decades, Lebanon has been used as a battle field for not only Israel and Syria but also Hezbollah and various Palestinian militant groups. Until the summer of 2000, for nearly two decades, much of southern Lebanon remained under Israeli occupation.
The position of Syria was more enduring. Like the position of Saddam Hussein vis-a-vis Kuwait, the Syrian leadership never recognized the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon. It had never reconciled to the formation of Lebanon and hence never recognized Lebanon as a sovereign state. Not many would know that the Syrian representative in Beirut was called ‘Governor’ and not Ambassador. Hence the UN Security Council Resolution 1680 adopted in May categorically called on Damascus to “establish full diplomatic relations and representation” with Beirut and recognize “Lebanon’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.”
Three, since the April 2005 hasty withdrawal of the Syrian forces from Lebanon, Hezbollah has emerged as the principal supporter of Syrian interests in Lebanon. Despite the ideological differences between the Islamic militants and the Ba’athist rulers in Damascus, since the founding of Hezbollah in the early 1980s Syria has remained its principal patron, supporter and supplier.
Without the logistical support provided by Syria, the Islamic republic of Iran, which was instrumental in the formation of Hezbollah, would not be able to provide political support, economic largesse, military supplies and above all ideological fervour. Hezbollah’s serving the interest of these two countries puts it at variance with the interests of the rest of the Arab world, which sees the current crisis as an unnecessary, avoidable and costly “adventure.”
Likewise, Hezbollah also served the interest of the Islamic Republic and its periodic rhetoric vis-a-vis the Jewish state and the militant group enables Iran to overcome the geographic constraints and reach the borders of Israel. Their shared animosity towards the peace process enabled both to work in tandem.
Above all, the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah took place on 12th July, the deadline set by the international community for the Iranian acceptance of the multilateral proposal for the nuclear standoff. Since then the crisis along the Israel-Lebanese border, and not Iran’s suspected nuclear ambitions, has dominated the international agenda. Even the meeting of G8 leaders in St. Petersburg that was supposed to evolve a consensus stand vis-a-vis Iran was hijacked by the new crisis.
Far from being under pressure from the international community over the nuclear question, Iran seeks to consolidate its interest by playing up its Hezbollah card.
While the international community, including Saudi Arabia and the Arab League, blames the Hezbollah for its precipitating the current crisis, it is no accident that only Iran and Syria support the Hezbollah for its “misadventure.”
In short, not many in West Asia see the Hezbollah as a resistance force but rather one of extremism and misadventure. Should New Delhi see it differently?
(The writer teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University)
if there is a reader who knows something about the Maronites, could you answer whether they are real Christians, or some nonChristian religion that has superficial elements of Christianity?
Disproportionate military response is the key to winning in war, according to the Powell Doctrine.
Well, the Maronites are in communion with the Pope of Rome.
Depending on your definition of "real Christians" that should be enough for you to sort our an answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.