Posted on 02/13/2007 7:40:58 PM PST by Ooh-Ah
The Yale Israel Journal devoted its Winter 2007 Roundtable to the Hezbollah War in 2006. Paul Liptz (Tel Aviv University), Michel Gurfinkiel (The Jean Jacques Rousseau Institute), Dennis Ross (Former United States Middle East Coordinator), Eyal Zisser (The Moshe Dayan Center and Tel-Aviv University), and Michael Rubin (The Middle East Quarterly) took part in the discussion. Here are Gurfinkiel's answers. The full text of the Roundtable is available HERE.
Is Israel right in calling Hezbollah’s attacks an act of war by Lebanon? More generally, should an attack by a non-state actor be considered an act of war by its host state?
MICHEL GURFINKIEL. Lebanon as a State is responsible for whatever military or terrorist operation undertaken by any Lebanese group against Israel or any other country. All the more so when Hezbollah actually sits in the cabinet.
In order to alleviate its responsability, Lebanon should either take steps to curb Hezbollah or exclude it from the cabinet. Neither step has been taken as of last July.
The fact that Hezbollah threatens and blackmails the Lebanese government is no excuse. Either a government is a functioning government, i. e. can enforce its decisions over at least part of the territory, or it is not. If it is not, it is not responsible. However, it should be ignored as an international player by the same token, suspended from the UN, etc.
This is true of course of any other country in the world beside Lebanon. If a government acts as a " host " to a non-State military or terrorist organization, either by tolerating its activities or by including it in the cabinet, it is responsible for this group’s operation. If it denounces the non-State organization as a rebel and an alien intruder, then the State is responsible only for that part of the territory which it still controls.
International law is a bit unclear about " acts of war " and whether they imply only governments or non-States organizations as well. By and large, there is an understanding that one defines war by the nature of the combat, rather than by the identity of the combattants, and that any party, either State or non-State, which engages in war activities is ipso facto subjected to the international conventions that regulate military conflict. Being a de facto war party, Hezbollah is responsible for its activities, and can be targeted for relaliation by any enemy party within any part of Lebanon that it controls. Any Lebanese institution (as the army) or facility (as roads, airports, harbors, power facilities) that is used by Hezbollah or supports Hezbollah is deemed to be under Hezbollah control as well.
Was Hezbollah’s entrenched position in Lebanon a sign of failed Israeli strategy and foresight since the May 2000 troop pullout from Lebanon?
MG. Israel knew about Hezbollah’s entrenched position and its growing military potential. It clearly characterized Hezbollah as a major strategic threat. The IDF was briefing foreign strategic experts about it. It had drawn contingency plans for sweeping anti-Hezbollah operations.
Why did Israel wait until July, 2006, to act ? Until then, it was simply busy with the Palestinian front (the Second Intifada, Operation Defensive Shield, building the security fence, withdrawing from Gaza) and reluctant to open a second front.
What is a striking failure for Israel, however, is the whole management of the July-August war.
What are Syria’s and Iran’s goals in supporting Hezbollah? Is their main aim the ultimate destruction of Israel or is it a more complex political goal?
MG. The destruction of Israel is to Arab or Islamic totalitarian regimes like Syria and Iran what the destruction of the Jews was to Nazi Germany or the destruction of West was to Soviet Russia : the drug that holds the whole operation together.
Still, both Syria and Iran have more complex goals in supporting Hezbollah (and Hamas) against Israel :
- being established as the leaders of the Islamic camp against Israel and the Christian West, and thus achieving regional supremacy ;How should nations deal with states that fund non-state terrorist entities? For example, how should the US respond to Iran’s funding of Hezbollah, which enabled it to attack Israel, a vital regional ally, and cause major destabilization in Lebanon?
- inasmuch as Israel will react, casting it as a villain again, and deleting the impact of Sharon’s far-reaching concessions ;
- protecting themselves against US or international intervention related to Lebanon or the nuclear build-up, since such intervention would appear as merely acting in the interest of Israel ;
- winning a further delay regarding the Iranian nuclear buildup ;
- helping Russia to earn much more oil-related money and getting more Russian weapons or systems.
>>>Should Israel be satisfied with the contents of UN Resolution 1701 and the deployment of a larger UNIFIL force?
Ahhhh, nope.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1779706/posts
UNIFIL enabled planting of bombs
As a "soverign" nation being conquered by Organized Crime, Lebanon can ask for outside help. Lebanon can also say that they will support any attacks against their Internal Criminals.
Not taking a stand against their Internal foes means they support those Criminals and so the government and people are guilty by association and tacit and even open support.
An armed militia attacking a neighboring nation and Lebanon gov't did not mothing to stop it . Lebanon is responsible for Hezbolla operating on its soil.
This is not a terribly productive position in that it doesn't help the Lebanese government do any better.
Either a government is a functioning government, i. e. can enforce its decisions over at least part of the territory, or it is not.
It may be functioning over most of its territory and not in other parts. That doesn't make it a dysfunctional government. Heck, the US doesn't control its borders, and I'd not expect the author to argue that it doesn't have a functioning government.
If it is not, it is not responsible. However, it should be ignored as an international player by the same token, suspended from the UN, etc.
Which doesn't help Lebanon plead its case to the world; in fact, it silences Lebanon in that regard. As I said, it's not a productive position.
Actually, I think Jordan and Syria have more culpability in that regard.
Yes. Hezbolla does operate out of Syria. But attacks were not launched from Syrian soil. Just arms deliveries which does not qualify as an act of war
You misunderstood me. Much of Hezbollah in Lebanon is constituted of Palestinians who were expelled from Jordan and refused by Syria.
Why isn't Hassan Nasrallah dead yet?
Oh how the greek mindset twists and bends around the concept of empire vs state.
Hizbullah operates in a multi national boundry because in an empire, there are no National boundries. We are fighting pre feudal people, not a modern civilisation. It is a big mistake to try to fit them to our modern descriptions.
Islam is an empire, not a greek city/nation state. Syria is Lebanon is Mecca, is Iran, is the taliban and Hizbullah.
The empire is Islam. Not Syria, Iran etc...
The sooner we get that, the sooner we become more effective in fighting this war.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
I assure you if we found that Mexicans had dug miles of trenches, bunkers, rocket firing sites, and were being supplied arms in MASSIVE quantities by say Venezuela and Iran, they would be wiped out quickly.
They have standing outposts on American soil with armed sentries.
There would be NO hesitation and no Mexicans controlling a third of our Congress to oppose it..
We have known members of MEChA in the California State Legislature. The Congress ignores the desire of nearly 90% of the American people.
Additionally we would not allow our neighbors on Canada, the Caribbean Island States, or Mexico to be attacked by terrorist forces from our soil. We would take immediate forceful action to stop it.
Mexican regulars in uniform HAVE fired on American Border Patrol on American soil with no reprisal.
The government of Lebanon does not have full control over ANY point in the country.
That's not what my Lebanese friends tell me, and they do go there regularly.
What other facts do you need to acknowledge that?
I see opinions advanced as fact.
OUTSTANDING comment, in a thread of very good comments, to a good article...BUMP!
ditto
"You misunderstood me. Much of Hezbollah in Lebanon is constituted of Palestinians who were expelled from Jordan and refused by Syria."
Sorry I did misunderstood you.
My comment was that Mexicans are attacking us as evidence that we don't control all of our territory, thus meeting your definition of a dysfunctional government. When you got an answer you didn't like, you chose to twist it. That Mexicans on American soil haven't gone on to mess with anybody else is merely a fact of geography.
They way they did it was in a manner exactly equivalent to Lebanon, where Palestinians from Jordan took up residence in Southern Lebanon and then fomented the civil war of the 80s. Only after they had control of Southern Lebanon did they turn they energies toward Israel.
Drug lords guarding their crops and stash is not a controlling military force not there primarily for crime.
These aren't just drug lords sirrah, they include military personnel.
Hezbollah on the other hand is there primarily to control territory, influence the politics, and attack Israel.
If you think the Mexicans are there to control territory, you're woefully misinformed.
Narco criminals are not here to be obvious but to make cash illegally with as little hassle as possible.
Oh they have much grander plans than that. By your standard for a dysfuntional government; i.e., one that does not control its own territory, the US is a dysfunctional government. As I said, it's a bogus standard.
" When you got an answer you didn't like, you chose to twist it."
No sir, that is you. You have done it several times with posts to me and others on this thread. You ignore what is really posted and type an answer off the subject.
Reminds me of a democrat. Not really worth acknowledging any more.
Good day, I am done.
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.