I had hoped that I would be able to get by the Middle East and go on to other subjects. We had planned a trip to North Korea which would have provided a treasure trove of topics to explore, but courtesy of DPRK’s changing visa restrictions the trip was canceled. So, back to the Middle East. Several people have asked about my thoughts on the current escalating conflict in the region. With the caveats that it has been three months since I have been on the ground in Israel and the West Bank and so my first hand information is getting stale and nothing that you think about the situation in this region survives the next news cycle, here are some thoughts. When we were in Bethlehem the Italian Franciscan monk who managed the Casa Nova Pilgrimage Center on Manger Square where we stayed, told us that he expected a third intifada (uprising) to begin. He said that we did not need to worry as it would not happen right away, but that the ongoing targeted killings, military incursions and arrests/kidnappings by the Israeli forces were leading even moderate Palestinians to say “enough is enough”. He felt that the objective of the Israelis was to provoke the intifada in order to justify their position that they had no negotiating partner and that they would probably succeed. My own conversations with Palestinians led me to agree with him. The phrase “enough is enough” was pretty common. It was clear that once the intifada began, which it did with increased Qassam rocket attacks and the kidnapping of an Israel soldier, that the Israelis were prepared to strike Gaza with overwhelming force. At the same time they massed their forces on the Lebanese border in the north. It was easy to predict that this would provoke Hezbollah to take action to protect themselves from a preemptive Israeli attack and to accomplish their long stated objective of taking Israeli prisoners to trade for Lebanese prisoners and an accounting of the “disappeared”. Since at that time there were meetings between Hamas and Hezbollah in Damascus, there probably was a component of taking the pressure off of Hamas in Gaza and forcing the Israelis into a two front war. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend) The Israelis were always a little leery of the Lebanese situation given the disastrous consequences of their last invasion. Hezbollah in Lebanon is a different animal from Hamas in Gaza. With 30,000 trained fighters and 15000 rockets, some capable of reaching Tel Aviv, it is a formidable enemy capable of inflicting considerable damage. But war fever has infected Israel, (as one columnist said “We should be grateful to Hezbollah for giving us this window of opportunity to launch an offensive…”) and they struck devastating blows on Lebanese infrastructure and population centers. For awhile it appeared that Israel was also intent on bringing Syria into the conflict. They over flew Syrian territory (What would happen if the Syrians shot down an Israeli plane?) and attacked the Lebanese/Syrian border crossing. (They claimed that they only hit the Lebanese side, but it wasn’t clear that the Syrians would see the distinction.) For a few days I was convinced that we were not far from bringing in the Syrians and thereby their allies the Iranians (They’re not natural allies, but once again the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and that may still happen. If the Bush administration was right in their claims that Saddam Hussein’s WMD were not found because they were transferred to Syria, casualties would rapidly escalate from hundreds to thousands. The comparison that occurred to me was the beginning of WW I. The assassination of one man in an obscure part of Europe (Who knew where Serbia was?) led to the destruction of an entire generation of European men because no leaders had the political courage or will to make the difficult decisions necessary to prevent the conflagration. Everybody thought that it would be a quick easy little war. (As if such a thing exists) Here the kidnapping of one Israeli soldier could end up involving the whole region and the U.S. in a major conflict for the same reasons. This morning, however, it appears that some sanity may be returning. The Israelis, after initially rejecting the proposal by Britain and Russia for an international force in Lebanon because it would restrict their military options, appear to be softening their position. Martin Indyck’s comments appear to indicate that AIPAC will give the U.S. permission to support the force. The kicker will be that Hezbollah will have to be part of the solution and nobody wants to talk with them. The Syrians and Iranians will have to play and they have their own agendas. Can the U.S./Israel get by this problem? If the international force works and succeeds it may have long term positive results. (Optimist) It might spread to the West Bank and Gaza and give Palestinian fighters the space to disarm and then Israel would no longer have an excuse not to negotiate. (Israel’s worst nightmare) Nevertheless, hope springs eternal, until the next news cycle.
Israel
Palestine
Current Affairs
No comments:
Post a Comment