Postmortem of Israeli-Hezbollah War – What Next?

The eerie sense of quiet in the villages and towns on southern Lebanon’s western edge underscores the sense of a war frozen in time, with the combatants still facing off and the deployment of international and Lebanese soldiers just a promise. The aura of imminent violence is pervasive. (Hassan M. Fattah, The New York Times, August 22, 2006).

Immediately after the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, political analysts began contemplating who had come out victorious in the war. President Bush was probably the first to declare that Israel had won the war. Hezbollah declared that victory had been theirs. There was dismay and disappointment in the Israeli ranks and public. They knew that Israel hadn’t won the war because it had failed to achieve the objectives for which it had launched the war. After the initial shock and euphoria, the realities began to sink in; there is a poignant lull on both sides.

Soon after the cessation of hostilities, Hezbollah offered financial help to the Lebanese who had suffered damage to their properties by the Israeli bombing; they started doling out thousands of dollars to each of the people whom they determined deserved the compensation. It was not a publicity stunt; it seemed that they really cared for their people. In spite of heavy damage that the Lebanese suffered in the war which the Western press said Hezbollah had precipitated, there was no ill-will against Hezbollah in Lebanon or in any other Arab country.

The Israeli public and the reservists are outraged and are demanding that their government investigate the causes of poor performance of the Israeli army. The outrage particularly increased on the death of 34 soldiers in the last-minute battles just before the truce. According to Yahoo!News (August 22, 2006), “Other groups of bereaved families and reservists have demanded that Olmert, Halutz and Peretz step down, some circulating petitions to that effect…’I left my wife and my 10-year-old son and risked my life to get the kidnapped soldiers back, to push back Hezbollah and to stop katyushas (rockets),’ said one of the protesters, 32-year-old reserved infantry soldier, Peuven Sharon. ‘Nothing of that happened. Now I want the government to take responsibility for it. They need to say ‘we’re sorry, we didn’t succeed, we’re going home.’”

Although, according to Israeli sources, all of the reservists have been pulled out of Lebanon, the regular forces estimated at 8,000 to 10,000 soldiers still remain ‘awaiting the arrival of the international peace-keeping force.’ The situation remains precarious. It might explode any time. The Israeli forces and Hezbollah soldiers did indeed clash on Monday in which three Hezbollah soldiers were killed. And there are real difficulties in assembling the international peace-keeping force which the UN resolution has called for.

France which has a ‘colonial history’ in Lebanon and was the architect of UN resolution, promised only 200 soldiers. Other European countries which are likely to contribute are hesitant and wary expressing concerns “about the rules of engagement, including what troops would be required to do, and who would disarm Hezbollah,” (Bush Calls Need For Robust Lebanon Force ‘Urgent,’ as Europeans Continue to Seek Specifics, The New York Times, Aug., 21, 2006).

Hesitation on the part of France is partly due to her fear that they “don’t want to be seen occupying a Muslim country, particularly because of their history in Algeria. Shooting at the Israeli Defense Forces also would not go down well with the French Jewish community,” (The New York Times, Aug., 21, 2006).

Italy which has signaled to contribute to the international force substantially does not have the same concerns as France but it is nevertheless worried about the Israel forces which are still in Lebanon. Italian Foreign Minister Massimon D’Alema was quoted as saying, “From Israel we expect a renewed commitment, and this time really binding, to respect the cease-fire. It is right to insist that Hezbollah put down their arms, but we cannot send our soldiers into Lebanon if the IDF (Israel Defense Force) continues to shoot.” So the part of the international peace-keeping force dilemma is Israel.

There are some insurmountable problems with Lebanon also. Although the Lebanese government had promised to furnish 15,000 soldiers to disarm Hezbollah, it now appears it cannot provide more than 7,000 to 8,000 soldiers. The Muslim countries particularly Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh have volunteered to contribute but Israel is objecting because they do not recognize the State of Israel. Despite Israeli objections, Indonesia insisted on its right to participate in the mission.

In view of these problems nobody knows if or when an effective and ‘robust’ international peace-keeping force can be mustered and brought to the region. In the mean time, there is a hazardous ‘lull’ although it can break any moment. Israel might choose to show its muscles now and then but it is quite unlikely that it will embark on another war quite so soon in the face of the public uproar about its poor performance against Hezbollah. It’s about time that Israel seriously pondered on having peace with its neighboring Arab states. Both sides have tested each other over a period of several decades and seen that the issue cannot be resolved by fighting. It is time to give peace a chance.

According to Seymour Herssh, “The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result,” (Watching Lebanon, The New Yorker, August 21, 2006). What the Israel and Arab states have been doing so far is insane according to Hersh’s definition. They should realize their blunder now.