Sacrificial Pawn

Kevin Sites, Yahoo’s Hot Zone reporter, has what I would characterize as a fair-minded and thorough summary of the war in Lebanon. Some key graphs:

Three weeks in and it’s clear that few are blameless in this conflict: Hezbollah for the kidnapping of IDF soldiers and the barrage of rockets they fire toward northern Israel from southern Lebanon, Israel for what many in the international community consider a disproportionate response to the provocation, and the West, specifically the U.S. and Britain, for not endorsing an immediate cease-fire that could have helped prevent so much death and destruction; the casualties may now include the West’s foreign policy interests in the Middle East.

But once again the biggest loser, it seems, is Lebanon. The country had finally turned the economic and political corner from its devastating civil war in 70s and 80s and was also asserting — with the exception of the presence of the armed Hezbollah militia in the south — a sense of its own sovereignty after Syrian troops departed its soil in March 2005.

Lebanon was more interested in economic growth than military might, pumping billions into hotels, restaurants, resorts and business. The hope was to regain the title of “the Paris of the Middle East,” and for a short time it succeeded.

“Lebanon is just a souk (a marketplace),” said one Beirut businessman during its period of rapid growth. “But it has no political clout whatsoever.”

Except, perhaps, as a pawn of both international and internal forces.

Some Middle East observers believe that Lebanon’s failure to invest in a strong military — one with sovereignty over the entire nation, including the strongholds of Hezbollah’s militia in the south — may have been its undoing.

Sites also points out what few mainstream media stories have mentioned — that cross-border incursions and kidnappings are a common occurence, and a two-way street:

One Middle East source with an intimate knowledge of Hezbollah, who wishes to remain anonymous because he’s still involved in back-channel negotiations, says that Hezbollah’s July 12 kidnapping of the two IDF soldiers was instigated, in part, by the earlier reneging by the Israeli government on a prisoner swap with Hezbollah.

“These kind of kidnappings are perpetrated by both sides,” says the source. “The Israelis have routinely landed helicopters in Lebanon, scooped up people and taken them back to Israel. It’s nothing so extraordinary.”

There are many levels to this unfolding tragedy. None may be greater than the grave undermining of democratic movements and social liberalization in the Middle East. Milt Beardon, a former CIA officer and ME expert, tells Sites why. Not only is Hezbollah “an organic part” of the 40% of Lebanon that is Shia, it has gained credibility in the region:

“Hezbollah is the current darling of everybody in the Middle East,” Bearden says, “mainly because of what they’ve accomplished by not being destroyed.”

“I don’t think anyone really believes you can remove Hezbollah through bombing,” says the source close to Hezbollah. “It’s an organization that is part of the Shia society. In fact, there will be Hezbollahs sprouting up all over the world after this. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are bridging that divide and it’s showing how vulnerable many of the Arab governments are.”

And though they’ve shown their vulnerability in this conflict, Bearden believes Arab governments have also found an “out” from the pressure from the West to democratize — since the U.S., to them, no longer seems like an honest broker after its response to Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s election victories in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon.

“The concept of a tsunami of democracy (in the Middle East) is done for,” Bearden says.

The last six years make it hard to remember a time when the US had some clout as an “honest broker,” back in the days of shuttle diplomacy and the Camp David accords. But our current Cowboy-in-Chief has little interest in such sissy, peacenik stuff, famously shaking off Colin Powell’s calls for engagement in the Israel/Palestinian conflict at the beginning of his administration with the bon mot, “Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things.â€?

Clarity is breaking out all over these days.

More from Sites and Bearden:

As a member of Conflicts Forum, a group of former cold warriors who believe the West has to establish a dialogue with fundamentalist Islamic organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah to peacefully resolve crises like this, Bearden says the U.S. missed important opportunities to head off the violence.

“I’ve been in countless hours of meetings with some of them (Hezbollah) to where I can guarantee you that they would have welcomed a quiet dialogue with the United States,” he says. “We don’t do our fundamental homework anymore. You’ve got to empathize with the enemy to the extent to that you don’t have a cartoon character that you’re fighting, but someone that might be smarter than anybody in your administration.”

Well, that last possibility strikes me as a pretty safe bet. The cartoon characters seem to be on our side, populating an Administration whose language of diplomacy can pretty much be summed up as, “Hulk smash!

cross-posted at the paper tiger

The Discussion: 5 Comments

I like Sites, but I call BS on this:

“These kind of kidnappings are perpetrated by both sides,” says the source. “The Israelis have routinely landed helicopters in Lebanon, scooped up people and taken them back to Israel. It’s nothing so extraordinary.”

If Israeli incursions and kidnappings post-2000 were a regular event, it wouldn’t be ignored by a world — but not necessarily American — media eager to paint Israel as a villain. I mean, Robert Fisk and his research assistants have a close relationship with Hizballah, and if Hizballah could put this story out there, they would. The British papers and European papers would love accounts of Israeli terrorism against poor, innocent members of the Party of God.

The bottom line is that Hizballah decided that the new conflict with Hamas was the perfect opportunity to lure an angry Israel into Lebanon and thus destabilize the Lebanese government (Hizballah’s primary goal), and so they perpetrated a copycat kidnapping assault against Israel, knowing that Israel would respond in force.

August 5, 2006 @ 3:47 am | Comment

I’m always puzzled by the need for outsiders to justify Israel’s war crimes. The excuses and explanations are now going to insane lengths. The Israeli artillery strike which killed a Palestinian family picnicking on a beach in June is now explained as hidden Palestinians mines exploding. The targeted strike at a UN compound which killed UN peacekeepers is now excused that Hezballah were launching missiles nearby. B’nai Brith Canada says the Lebanese civilians killed at Qana was because Hezbollah missiles launchers were nearby and Hezbollah relishes these deaths to conduct a propaganda war against Israel.

Israel has hundreds of Palestinians prisoners including women and children. When this conflict began they arrested dozens of Hamas legislators. How do you think they got these people? The week before the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier in Gaza, Israeli commandoes kidnapped two Palestinians who they believed were terrorists. Why is one considered a crime and the other isn’t? Why is one ignored and the other reported widely around the world?

Israel conducts war crimes that are usually ignored by American Media because of fear of powerful Jewish groups and lobbies. Haim Watzman, author of the book “Company C: An American’s Life as a Citizen-Solder”, wrote an article for the New York Times about Israel use of human shields. When Israeli soldiers need to raid a house or patrol a dangerous road they would grab a civilian and place him in front of them. Sometimes they would force bystanders to dismantle roadblocks in case they were booby trapped.

As a non-Christian and non-Jew, I don’t really have much of a personal stake in the Middle East. Some of my former neighbors in Montreal were Lebanese and they were good people. What I object to is ignoring or excusing Israel’s war crimes. Both sides are guilty of both and let’s call a spade a spade.

August 5, 2006 @ 7:34 am | Comment

Matthew, I’ve heard examples of Israeli kidnappings, including that of a Palestinian doctor and his son, which was another trigger-point in the recent Hamas-Israel conflict. It does happen. It sometimes gets reported. But Israel’s non-judicial dententions don’t get nearly the attention. All we hear about are these two kidnapped soldiers. Come on, we’re dealing with the country of the Mossad here. They’re famous for that sort of thing.

Also, from many accounts, the ferocity of the Israeli response took Hezbollah by surprise. Those accounts posit that Hezbollah wanted to free Lebanese prisoners — not see most of Lebanon destroyed. Now, I’ll accept that your argument, that they wanted the Israeli response so that they could destabilize Lebanon and gain greater influence, is one that makes sense and could also be true. But there are counters to that which are also possible.

I mean, Israel’s response took me by surprise! I know the national policy is, we have to be the toughest bastards on the block, but what they’ve done in Lebanon to me is nothing short of insanity.

August 5, 2006 @ 10:35 am | Comment

I’ve previously dismissed Sites as a kind of novelty, too buff and tousled to be taken seriously. I’ve since revised my thinking.

August 7, 2006 @ 10:40 am | Comment

Yep, Panda, I had the same initial impression. Though I think stylistically, his work is designed to appeal to a younger (maybe less literate) audience, the content is really pretty solid. And I thought this article was a good piece of reporting.

August 7, 2006 @ 5:18 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.