[News] Blackmail by bombs
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Mon Jul 24 14:05:35 EDT 2006
http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2006/july/july20-2.html
July 20, 2006
Blackmail by bombs
By: Dr. Azmi Bishara*
Any comparison between Olmert's and Nasrallah's
political rhetoric must conclude that the latter
is the more rational. His speeches are more
consistent with the facts and rely less than
Olmert's on religious expressions and allusions.
Nasrallah would never dare seal a parliamentary
speech with a lengthy prayer, as Olmert did in
his latest speech before the Knesset.
Israeli politicians have no cultural or moral
edge over resistance leaders. The latter are far
less attached to Iran than the former are to the
US, and Hizbullah's constituency is less attached
to Iran than the organised Jewish community abroad is to Israel.
The people who unleashed the brutal war against
Lebanon are neither intelligent nor courageous.
Quite the opposite; they are mediocrities,
cowards and opportunists, but they happen to have
military superiority. And they possess the keys
to the machinery of a state, a real state, one
that is secure in its identity, that has clear
national security goals and channels of national
mobilisation, as opposed to a long deferred
project for statehood and a states built on the
fragmentation of national identity. On the other
side is a resistance movement operating in the
context of a denominationally organised society,
a Lebanese government neutralised to everything
but sectarianism, and an Arab order parts of
which are rooting for Israel to do what it is
incapable, or too embarrassed, to do itself,
which is to deal with the resistance as a militia
because it foregrounds their own lack of national and popular legitimacy.
Israel has nothing to show for ten days of
barbaric vandalism and the deliberate targeting
of civilians. It cannot claim a single military
victory against the Lebanese resistance. It can,
though, point proudly to whole residential
quarters that have been reduced to rubble, to the
burned out hulks and ruins of countless wharfs,
factories, bridges, roads, tunnels, electricity
generators and civil defence buildings. In terms
of explosive and destructive power Israel has
thrown an atom bomb on Lebanon, it is the Israeli Hiroshima.
True, Israel suffers a paucity of intelligence on
the whereabouts of Hizbullah members, which is
why it has been targeting the homes of their
families. But this does not justify the
systematic bombardment of Lebanese society, and
the attempts to destroy its economy. This is the
epitome of terrorism: the incitement of terror in
a civilian populace by unleashing massive
violence and destruction against it in an attempt
to compel the people's political leaders to act
against the Lebanese resistance or to change their positions.
The current Israeli assault against Lebanon has
nothing to do with freeing two captured soldiers.
That is a purely tangential concern, and Israel
will probably agree to a prisoner exchange when
the time comes. Of prime concern, on the other
hand, is an agenda that has bearings on Lebanese
domestic, as well as American agenda for regional, politics.
The issue is not why the resistance chose this
particular time for its operation. Timing, here,
becomes another pretext for vilifying the
resistance and justifying the aggression. The
fact is that, over the past few months, the
resistance made several attempts to capture
Israeli soldiers. The difference is that its last
attempt succeeded. Also, the Israeli soldiers
that died in this operation were not killed in
combat, but rather because their tank rolled over
a landmine while pursuing the kidnappers. A more
important question is why Israel choose this time
to launch a full scale attack?
The timing is an Israeli-American one. And the
answer resides with the Arabs and the US, and
their inability to implement UN Security Council
Resolution 1559 and dismantle the Lebanese
resistance with Arab tools. So Israel stepped
forward. The only difference between today and
the earlier bombardments -- the "Day of
Reckoning" and "Grapes of Wrath" between 1993 and
1996 -- is that Syrian forces are no longer
present in Lebanon. Instead there is an
American-sponsored project for the country,
involving the rest of the Arab world, which was
to change the structure of government in Lebanon
and transform it into an ally of the US, a good
neighbour to Israel and a participant in US- oriented alliances in the region.
The project took off following the assassination
of Al-Hariri, but in recent months it had run
aground as it became increasingly clear that the
Arabs had no practical means to keep it afloat.
What kept discussions in Beirut from collapsing
completely was the fact that the only alternative
was internal violence and civil war. But while it
was obvious that the talks were useful in keeping
violence at bay and, hence, good for the tourist
season, they were not helping to advance the
American project in Lebanon. It was equally
obvious, therefore, that those who wanted to push
this project were expecting something to happen
-- a US strike against Iran, for example, or an
Israeli strike against Lebanon. Given the Iranian
option remains currently out of bounds Israel
knew it could count on a tacit green light from
major Arab powers for its attack against Lebanon,
and they did not disappoint it. It was the scope
and vehemence of Israel's actions in Lebanon that came as the surprise.
This is neither an Iranian nor a Syrian war.The
fist is just being involved in dialogue with the
Americans and the second has been trying to avoid
a war with Israel for decades.
Israel's aim is to change the rules of the game
between Israel and Lebanon and, therefore, within
Lebanon itself. This is the only point of
similarity between the current campaign and the
war of 1982. The major differences are that, on
the negative side, international and regional
circumstances favour Israel, while on the
positive side the resistance, which is not
Palestinian but Lebanese this time, is much
stronger and better organised. To these two we
can add another, which is that the Lebanese are
not heading towards another 17 May; that
experience they have put firmly behind them and
no one wants to rake it up again. Even after the
Syrian withdrawal the Lebanese society has much
more positive attitude towards the Lebanese
resistance than it had towards the Palestinian
resistance, in those days of 1982 a part of the
Lebanese people fought on the side of the
Israelis. The initiative now lies in the hands of
the Lebanese people and the resistance. They,
alone, have the ability to thwart the conspiracy.
International delegations will soon appear in
Lebanon to reap the fruits of the aggression.
They will promise the Lebanese a ceasefire if
they implement 1559, saying that there is no
longer any excuse for delaying implementation now
that the Israeli army has demonstrated the
consequences of non- implementation.
Roed-Larsen's visit was not a fact-finding
mission. Sending Roed-Larsen was in itself a
political statement. He is not only the Israeli
Labour Party's man on the conflict with the
Palestinians, he is also the spokesman of the
Israeli position with respect to the Lebanese
resistance. He is the one who is after
blood-money to compensate for Barak's loss of
honour after withdrawing from Lebanon and the one
who was called in to supervise the implementation
of Resolution 1559. Larsen has not only drawn a
red line at crossing the blue line, he regards
the Lebanese resistance as a local militia. He is
also a foremost exponent of that now old term,
"the New Middle East", by which is meant, at
best, the normalisation of Arab relations, ie
according inter-Arab relations no more priority
than bilateral relations between individual Arab
states and Israel. Larsen was the sworn enemy of
Yasser Arafat, who spoiled the Oslo recipe and
refused to behave as he was supposed to. He is
filled with a mixture of hatred and bitterness
against "Arab extremists" and harbours low
expectations of, and disappointment with, "Arab
moderates" who should always demonstrate that
they are up to the Israeli establishment's expectations.
That's what it's all about; the rest is décor.
We'll see Larsen in the garb of mediator, which
hardly suits him since he is not an arbitrator
and nowhere near the middle. And, we'll be
inundated with details about ceasefires, truces,
and preparations for implementing 1559.
The resistance isn't playing the role of victim.
It didn't ask for international sympathy with the
victims but for solidarity among freedom-seeking
peoples. These are the rules of another game, a
language that Arab regimes have forgotten, if
they ever really knew it, though they owe their
own existence to such a discourse. I am speaking
of the language of liberation movements that
exact a payment for colonisation from the
coloniser. Resistance movements attempt to exact
a price that their adversaries cannot afford and
that the societies of their adversaries do not
wish to pay, and they try to encumber their
adversaries in a manner that inhibits the full
use of force. This is how resistance movements
try to neutralise military superiority.
The resistance was not being unduly reckless; it
did not even select the timing. It was Israel
that chose to open a broad battlefront against
the resistance. It feared that putting off an
inevitable battle with the Lebanese resistance
would only give the resistance time to grow
stronger and increase its arsenal. One reason why
Israel chose this time in particular was that it
already knew how key Arab regimes would react.
The situation, therefore, is the opposite of what
is being portrayed: the charge that the
resistance has courted disaster betrays the
existence of an Arab camp that regards robust
resistance in Lebanon and Palestine as an adventure.
The US, meanwhile, is futilely trying to regulate
Israel's cowardly assault against civilians and
its destruction of civilian infrastructure. It
wants Israel to target the resistance and the
society that supports it without jeopardising the
American project in Lebanon. It wants Israel to
bully and blackmail America's allies without
crushing them, alienating them completely or
driving their supporters into the arms of the
resistance. The difference between the Israel and
the US, here, maybe tactical, but it is
important. It is one of degree, of pushing or not
pushing people over the edge.
Whereas the US wants Israel to promote the
American project in Lebanon rather than throw out
the baby with the bathwater, Israel wants the US,
Washington's allies and all the international
agencies at their disposal, to negotiate with the
Lebanese government a ceasefire that fulfils
several conditions. The first is to disarm
Hizbullah, the second to deploy the official
Lebanese army in the south and substitute the
international force with a proper NATO force, the
third to release the Israeli captives. But it is
the first condition that is the one that counts;
meeting this will be sufficient for Israel to
agree to a ceasefire. The political order that
emerges from the rubble of Israel's destruction
in will see to the rest. Israel, in other words,
has decided to settle internal Lebanese dialogue by Israeli force of arms.
A Nato force accepted by the government without
the consent of the people will be considered an
occupation force and will be the next target of
the resistance thus creating a new Iraq, a
fragmented Lebanon. If the Lebanese government
agrees to the proposed settlement that includes
dismantling Hizbullah a process of attrition will
start also from the inside aimed at getting
Lebanese society to pressure the resistance into
conceding. This is how internal strife is ignited and it is part of the plan.
Israel decided that this would not only be a good
time to go on the offensive but that the battle
would be decisive. If the Israeli terrorist
project and military adventure is not to prevail,
it is not just the resilience of the resistance
that matters but also the unity of the Lebanese
against Israeli aggression and its political aims.
The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20060724/2fcdbad7/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list