Lebanon war and US interests
By Javid Husain
“THE relationship between the US and Israel is like that of a dog and the tail,” remarked an American diplomat in a friendly conversation with me some time ago. “The only difference is that in the case of the US and Israel, the tail (Israel) wags the dog (the US),” he added to drive home the nature of this relationship.
I was reminded of these remarks when I read that both the US Senate and the House of Representatives had adopted with near unanimity resolutions of total support to Israel in its ongoing conflict with Lebanon. Apparently no attempt was made in either of the two legislative organs to look at the situation in the region in perspective and draw the right conclusions for the long-term interests of the US in the region.
We are all aware that Hezbollah launched a guerilla attack across the Israel-Lebanese border on July 12 as a result of which two Israeli soldiers were captured, eight killed and two wounded. Israel launched air attacks on Lebanon the following day. These attacks which have continued since then have killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians, displaced over 800,000 people, and destroyed Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure including roads, ports and airports, bridges and houses worth over $ one billion. Since July 19, Israeli land forces have also been operating in the Lebanese border areas to search and destroy Hezbollah bases. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has continued firing rockets at Israeli border towns causing some casualties and limited damage to Israeli infrastructure.
Israel has so far rejected all calls for an immediate ceasefire. Its prime minister Ehud Olmert, has outlined three conditions for the military operations to end: disarming Hezbollah in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, ending rocket attacks from Lebanon on Israeli towns, and the return of the two captured soldiers. On the other hand, Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has announced that a prisoner exchange is the only way to secure the release of the two captured Israeli soldiers. Quite obviously, Hezbollah would resist attempts for disarming the group.
It would, however, be a mistake to consider the Hezbollah attack on Israeli soldiers an isolated event. The attack needs to be seen in the wider context of the calculated attempts by Israel to derail the peace process initiated by the Quartet’s roadmap, its continued occupation of Arab territories not only in Palestine but also in Syria (Golan Heights) and in Lebanon (Shebaa Farms), its denial of national rights to the Palestinian people, its policy of creating Palestinian Bantustans instead of allowing the establishment of an independent and viable state side by side with Israel, its frequent and indiscriminate attacks on Gaza resulting in the loss of innocent lives and material destruction, and innumerable acts of atrocities against the Palestinians.
Israel’s aggressive activities and atrocities against the Palestinians and the inability of the international community to check the former have radicalised the situation in Palestine and Lebanon. The failure of the Arab states to play their due role in the restoration of national rights of the Palestinian people and the recovery of occupied Arab lands has provided an opportunity to non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas to gain prominence in the Palestinian/Arab struggle against Israel.
It was against this background that on June 9, 2006 Hamas, in response to the killing of seven members of a young family on a Gaza beach by shells fired by Israeli forces, formally ended a 16-month truce by firing rockets at Israel. On June 25, an Israeli soldier was captured by Hamas in a cross-border attack which left two Israeli soldiers dead. Israel launched military operations in Gaza to free the Israeli soldier after rejecting the proposal by Hamas to exchange the captured Israeli soldier for Palestinian officials in Israeli prisons. Seen in this context, the Hezbollah attack of July 12 has opened a second front for Israel.
It has been Israel’s attempt to project the Hezbollah attack as an isolated event without any background and history, and to portray its indiscriminate attacks on Lebanon as legitimate acts of self-defence. In this attempt, it has largely succeeded particularly in the US and to a lesser extent in Europe. President Bush has unequivocally backed Israel’s right to defend itself while urging it to exercise restraint and avoid weakening the Lebanese government. Russia and France have criticised Israeli attacks on Lebanon as merely disproportionate.
The G-8 summit statement issued from St. Petersburg on 16 July avoided calling for an immediate ceasefire in view of the US opposition and instead laid down a list of conditions for a sustainable ceasefire including the cessation of rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel, an end to Israeli military operations in Lebanon and the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza, the return of Israeli soldiers, release by Israel of arrested Palestinian ministers and lawmakers, disarming of Hezbollah in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, and a request to the Security Council to consider the deployment of an international force to prevent cross-border attacks between Lebanon and Israel. The Israeli game plan is to use the opportunity provided by the current situation to crush the Arab/ Palestinian resistance by militarily degrading the capabilities of both Hamas and Hezbollah through attacks in Gaza and Lebanon. According to the New York Times, the Bush administration has given a green signal to Israel in its attempt to militarily subdue Hezbollah. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the US has stalled all international calls both at the UN and elsewhere for an immediate ceasefire despite the death and destruction caused by Israel to civilians in Lebanon with no apparent connection to Hezbollah’s activities.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice resisted calls for an immediate ceasefire by Lebanon and the Arab states, which were backed by countries such as France and Russia, at the international meeting held at Rome on July 26. She said that the root causes must be addressed first to make the ceasefire sustainable. This, in the US view, would involve the disarming of Hezbollah in accordance with UNSC resolution 1559 and the stationing of an international security force to monitor the Israel-Lebanese border. While the multilateral negotiations at the UN Security Council to achieve these objectives will take time, Israel has interpreted the failure of the talks at Rome as a green light to continue its assaults on Lebanon in blatant violation of international humanitarian law and the principles of the UN charter.
Even the Qana air attack, which resulted in the death of 60 Lebanese civilians including 37 children, merely led to a 48-hour suspension of aerial attacks by Israel and a UNSC presidential statement (issued on July 30) expressing shock over the incident and underscoring the urgency of a sustainable ceasefire but not demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities as had been recommended by the UN secretary general.
The near-total support extended by the US to Tel Aviv not only reflects the deep and pervasive influence of the Israeli lobby in American politics, which has been analysed in depth in a recent American study, but also the fact that the Israel’s attempts to crush the Arab/Palestinian resistance, after having subdued the Arab states in its quest for total security, are viewed by the neo-con dominated Bush administration to be in consonance with US strategic goals in the region.
Those US strategic goals in the Middle East are the reconfiguration of the political map of the region to prevent the possibility of any challenge to US supremacy in the Middle East, the tightening of its stranglehold on the oil and gas resources of the Middle East, and the strengthening of the security of Israel as a US outpost in the region. The invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were meant to serve these strategic goals more than anything else.
By now the US has pliant states almost everywhere in the Middle East, with the exception of Syria and Iran which have not yet fallen in line with US demands relating to Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. This is the real reason for US hostility towards these two states. Similarly, non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are resisting Israeli acts of aggression thus deviating from the path dictated by Washington, are like thorns in Washington’s eyes. It is strange that while the US considers the Arab/Palestinian resistance to Israeli aggression and occupation indefensible, it justifies Israeli attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians as legitimate acts of self-defence.
In view of the intertwining of the strategic goals of the US and Israel, and the pervasive influence of the Israeli lobby in the US, it is unrealistic to expect Washington to play the role of an honest broker in the realisation of a just settlement of the Palestine issue and the Arab-Israel conflict. The Quartet’s roadmap for a peaceful settlement of the Palestine issue, which has now been declared dead by the Arab League secretary-general, was, therefore, still-born in any case.
Ironically, the biased policies that the US is pursuing in support of Israel and Washington’s pursuit of hegemonic designs in the region are generating such a strong reaction in the Arab and the Muslim world that in the long run they will prove to be counterproductive and defeat the very strategic goals which they are supposed to achieve. Even if the US and Israel succeed in crushing Hamas and Hezbollah, other resistance movements may succeed them as long as the fire of freedom remains alive in the hearts of the Arabs and the Palestinians. Similarly, the growing anti-American sentiments in the Arab and the Muslim world may result in the overthrow of moderate and pro-US governments in the region. The ultimate fate of the US policies towards the Middle East, if not corrected in time, may, therefore, turn out to be like the denouement of a Greek tragedy.
The writer is a former ambassador. E-mail:
javid_husain@yahoo.com