republican
01.08.06, 20:31
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Macie jakas opinie na ten temat czy wam jaj brak?
Israel and Lebanon
Stuck in Lebanon
Jul 27th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Why this war is likely to be long, unless America tries harder to shorten it
ReutersWHEN the war ends, and if he survives it, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah will
probably think twice next time he is inclined to send his fighters across the
border to attack Israel. But that does not mean he will not send them, for
Israel has so far failed in its efforts to crush Hizbullah in Lebanon.
Israel's air force has pounded every corner of that wretched country, killing
hundreds of civilians and putting hundreds of thousands to flight, for more
than two weeks. Yet this has not stopped Hizbullah from sending about 100
rockets a day in the opposite direction. All of Israel's efforts so far to
kill Mr Nasrallah have failed as well. And so, of course, have its attempts
to force Lebanon's government to take him on itself. If the mighty Israelis
are not capable of defeating the Arabs' new Saladin, why should one of the
region's most feeble and divided governments dare to try?
They have a plan
That simple military logic explains the paralysis that afflicted the would-be
peacemakers in Rome on July 26th (see article). America and Israel want to
end this war in a way that transforms the balance of power in the Levant. It
is an appetising prospect. If Hizbullah's state-within-a-state can be
dismantled, Lebanon's elected government could consolidate its independence
from Syria and Iran and stabilise its border with Israel. The humbling of
Hizbullah would curb the growing regional influence of Iran and send a
sobering message to those Palestinians who have been inspired by Hizbullah to
try to liberate the West Bank by violence rather than negotiation. Saudi
Arabia, Jordan and Egypt would also be gratified by the clipping of Iranian
wings, though they dare not say so openly.
It is because America wants to end the war this way that there was no call
from Rome for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire. Condoleezza Rice,
America's secretary of state, said that the previous arrangement should not
be the basis for a lasting ceasefire. Before this war, Hizbullah was in
control of Israel's border with Lebanon, and could provoke a clash at any
time. The new idea agreed in Rome was to raise a United Nations force in
order to help Lebanon's government assert its authority and disarm Hizbullah,
in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004.
But raising such a force will take time. And even when it comes into being
the Lebanese government is not going to be eager to impose its will on
Hizbullah by force. Only if Israel clobbers Hizbullah hard enough might Mr
Nasrallah be in the market for some face-saving way to give the plan his
blessing. But so far the war seems to be going well for him. The thousands of
rockets he has fired at Israel have not yet killed many Israeli civilians,
but they have brought normal life in much of Israel to a halt. On the ground
his fighters have given Israel's war machine a jolt. With Muslims far and
wide cheering him on, he may be in no mood to stop.
If Hizbullah does not want to stop the war, can Israel? Ehud Olmert, Israel's
inexperienced new prime minister, is discovering the old truism that wars are
easier to begin than to end. Most Israelis fully understood and supported his
reasons for treating Hizbullah's cross-border attack of July 12th as an act
of war. Israel withdrew from Lebanon six years ago but Hizbullah, like its
Iranian sponsor, claims to seek Israel's complete destruction and seizes
every pretext to fight on. Although Israelis are prepared to endure hardships
to remove this mortal enemy, they have spent more than two weeks under fire
with little to show for it. So Mr Olmert must choose between pressing
bloodily on or suing for peace without having achieved his declared aim of
destroying Hizbullah's military power.
The chances are the war will continue until Mr Olmert can point to some sort
of achievement. Removing Hizbullah from the border would at least be that.
Many Israelis would regard anything less as more than a humiliation. Climbing
down would make Israel look weak both to Hizbullah and to other foes who need
to be deterred, such as Hamas today and, possibly, a nuclear-armed Iran
tomorrow. For that reason, for his own political survival and because the
United States is still giving him time, Mr Olmert is likely to fight on. He
may be consoled by the thought that Israel has not yet called up more than a
fraction of its army, and that in past wars that started badly, notably the
one in 1973, Israel has still gone on to win.
Such a calculation may or may not make sense for Israel. But it is not the
right strategy for America. A war that neither side dares to lose and both
believe it can win is a perilous thing. Apart from prolonging the killing, it
risks escalating and spreading. How long before Syria and Iran try to restock
Mr Nasrallah's arsenal and Israel tries to stop them? Even the pro-American
Saudis are finding it hard to sit on the sidelines while the hated Zionists
knock the stuffing out of Lebanon. Besides, whatever strategic advantage
America stands to gain in Lebanon by giving Israel time to win is liable to
be cancelled out by the corresponding drubbing America will receive in public
opinion everywhere else in the Arab world, not least in Iraq. Whatever the
rights and wrongs of this particular new fight, America's perceived
partiality to Israel is a gaping hole in its policy in the Middle East. It
should avoid widening it.
Call a stop now, without conditions
The right thing for America is to call for an immediate stop to the fighting,
postponing its plans for the reordering of Lebanon until the period after the
guns fall silent. This may not lead soon, or ever, to the disarming of
Hizbullah, which means that Lebanon will remain unstable and Israel will
still feel threatened. Nor would such an ending deal the desired blow to
Hamas and Iran, which will continue to work against a negotiated Israeli
peace with Palestine. But the truth is that Israel's military campaign shows
little sign of being able to achieve these goals either. And it is just
possible that once this pointless war is over Hizbullah will come under
growing political pressure within Lebanon to avoid provoking another. Mr
Nasrallah may of course feel strong enough to ignore a call for an immediate
ceasefire. The war would go on. But then at least it would be plain who was
to blame for the misery.