A long post from me. The events in the Middle East of the last few days have been troubling. Popular opinion across the world seems to agree that Israel's reactions have been beyond what most considerable reasonable. So, I'm going to speculate on why I think Israel has acted so. Maybe by the end of it I'll decide whether or not I agree with it.
First, the situation as I understand it.
Twice before, Israel has invaded southern Lebanon in response to border crossing attacks. Back then the terrorist organization was PLO under Yassar Arafat. Hezbollah formed in response to the second Israeli invasion. It wasn't until 2000 when Israel withdrew from portions of southern Lebanon that the UN finally considered the Israel invasion of Lebanon over. One casualty estimate from these invasions totals over 15,000. Hezbollah received credit from many in southern Lebanon for Israel's pullout in 2000.
In 2004 Germany broked a prisoner trade between Hezbollah and Israel where two Israelis, a civilian and a retired officer, and the remains of three Israeli soldiers were traded for the release several dozen Lebanese guerilla prisoners. This trade was greatly unpopular among Israelis while in Lebanon the militants were welcomed home amid fanfare by both Hezbollah and the Lebanese president. When Hezbollah deliberately captured Israeli soldiers last week and then demanded another prisoner trade, there was little incentive for Israel to agree since another prisoner trade would merely encourage Hezbollah to continue to try to attack and capture Israeli soldiers and citizens again and again. Obviously a different response is necessary.
Other factors to consider. Lebanon recently managed to evict Syrian armed forces in 2005, an event that the global community celebrated, Lebanese and Israeli and the West alike. In the parliamentary elections that followed, Hezbollah received strong support in southern Lebanon and became elected members of government. The militia wing of Hezbollah is allowed by the Lebanese government to operate freely in southern Lebanon, a topic that is extremely controversial in Lebanon. My impression is that the rest of the Lebanon can't prevent Hezbollah from acting as it wishes. The militia wing also receives financial support from Syria and alleged military and intel support from Iran. Both countries that are intolerant of Israel's existance. There is also evidence that Hezbollah has been providing training and arms to Hamas.
Given the situation, what should Israel's short-term and long-term objectives be?
Obviously they consider the safety and security of Israeli citizens paramount. In the short-term, the captured Israeli soldiers must be rescued and Hezbollah's capability to attack must be neutralized. In the long-term, Israel would like to see militant groups like Hezbollah receive less popular support and eventually wither away into obscurity.
To neutralize Hezbollah's immediate offensive capabilities, the effective targets are the resources in materials, experienced personnel, and supply routes. Since much of Hezbollah's resources are spread through civilian areas in southern Lebanon, I see three choices to neutralize them. One is to invade and capture these as was tried before. Another is to use surgical strikes to destroy resources and prevent resupply of Hezbollah from Syria and/or Iran. The third is to coerce Hezbollah into ceasing operations by convincing their suppliers to stop providing... unlikely in the case of Syria and Iran.
To secure the return of the Israeli captives I see three choices. Locate them and rescue them with a strike team, invade southern Lebanon and locate and free them, or convince Hezbollah to surrender them. Hezbollah likely won't surrender them without great pressure from the rest of Lebanon's government and public, or pressure by other Arab power bases.
The fact that parts of Lebanon elected Hezbollah is indicative of their popular support and also presents an option that may allow Israel to meet all of their objectives without invading Lebanon.
What has Israel done?
They have decided to consider Hezbollah as part of Lebanon's government, which means Hezbollah's acts constitute overt hostile acts of one state against another, and therefore can use that as a legal premise to attack the infrastructure of Lebanon. By attacking bridges, airports, and seaports it becomes much more difficult to resupply Hezbollah (and Lebanon for that matter). By attacking the infrastructure and making it clear that this is a response to Hezbollah's attacks, it may turn popular support against Hezbollah, deter future attacks, and return the captives. (It may also do the opposite.) By attacking Hezbollah's headquarters and supply houses, Israel strikes at the resources they currently have. In many ways this response is similar to the American response to September 11 by striking and invading Afganhistan, whose Taliban government supported Al-Qaeda's attacks. If these surgical strikes and limited warfare do not succeed in meeting Israel's objectives, the invasion option is still there.
My spin on all this.
Given the situation and given the decision by Israel to try to force a resolution to Hezbollah's repeated attacks, the Israeli response makes some sense. I personally hoped for a more measured response that dealt with the captives but that would not have prevented future attacks by Hezbollah. Delaying such a resolution would only be in the interest of Hezbollah. I hope the crisis is resolved before Israel believes an invasion to be necessary, but at this time I unfortunately consider that unlikely. If that happens, I'm unsure what will happen next.
I think the world is unsure what will happen next.
Labels: current events
