By Brigitte L. Nacos
When hundreds of people die, many more are injured, and residents are driven out of their neighborhoods, nobody wins. Nevertheless, as the cease fire between Israelis and Hezbollah continues to hold, for the time being that is, leaders on both sides have claimed victory. But polls, reported today, indicate that a solid majority of Israelis believe that neither side was victorious or that Hezbollah won. And while I haven't heard of Lebanese voices giving the victory to Israel, some observers in Lebanon call the result of the armed conflict a draw. In reality, we simply do not know whether the outcome will be more beneficial for one side or the other.
According to Yahoo News, EX-CIA official Milt Bearden has no doubts about the winner-loser question. "Where it counts, Hezbollah is clearly the winner," he said. "For Israel...not winning is losing. And for an irregular force like Hezbollah, not losing is winning." As I see it, Hezbollah used to be a terrorist organization and "an irregular force" but today's Hezbollah is as strong, or stronger even, than many regular armies, political parties, and governments in the region--because of its size, training, arsenal of weapons provided by state sponsors, political role within the Lebanese government, and popular support.
A large photograph on the front page of today's New York Times shows soldiers of the Lebanese army arriving in Tyre. Underneath the picture, the headline reads, "Lebanese Army Begins Enforcing a Cease Fire." But in smaller print, the caption states more realistically that this deployment seems "more symbolism than security." Indeed, nobody should expect the weaker Lebanese army in which many Shiites serve, to disarm or move in any way against the stronger forces of the Shiite Hizbollah, even if the Nasrallah-led organization should renew hostilities against Israel. An article in today's Washington Post reflects this reality on the ground.
The one advantage for Israelis is now that they can hold Lebanon's government responsible, if rockets are launched from Southern Lebanon. The government in Beirut cannot pass the buck anymore.
But most of all, what happens in the foreseeable future will depend on the international force that is supposed to keep the peace at the Israeli-Lebanese border; it will depend on the UN force's strength, its rules of engagement, and the time table of its deployment. If empowered to keep Hezbollah's military in check and dismantle rocket launchers and other military capabilities, Israel would gain a much desired buffer as the result of the recent military conflict. The people in Haifa and other places that were hit by rockets could resume their normal lives.
Equally important, the Lebanese people, especially those in the South, would be able to rebuild their destroyed villages and towns and cities in the hope of a more peaceful future.
Unfortunately, as the Washington Post rightly states in today's editorial "Where Did the French Go?", it now appears as if the French are dragging their feet instead of taking the expected lead in contributing to the UN force in Lebanon.
In sum, then, it seems too early to assess the full impact of the latest war and what it means not only for Israel and Lebanon but in the larger conflicht between Israel and those groups and government in her neighborhood that do not accept her right to exist.
Violence, whether in form of war or terrorism and counterterrorism, will not solve this problem or similar ones. Ultimately, non-violence is the more promising road to coexistence and peace. Therefore, there is a great and urgent need not only to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process but to extent the search for non-violent solutions to the larger region involving all governments and organizations willing to participate.
Comments