Prehistory
In response to Rachel Kleinfeld, I really don't think liberals should -- or have any need to -- concede nearly that much to right-wing Israeli critics of the 2000 Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
The debate there was a classic "appeasement versus compromise" sort of thing. Ehud Barak took the view that if Israel departed from Southern Lebanon, the overall number of Israelis getting killed by Hezbollah would go down. The only cost would be loss of control over a strip of land that Israel didn't really want. The Israeli right took the standard rightwing position on "appeasement" and said this was all wrong.
As far as Lebanon goes, Barak was completely vindicated. Hezbollah attacks on Israelis were far lower in the post-withdrawal era than in the pre-withdrawal era. Withdrawal from Lebanon brought other benefits as well. With Israeli forces no longer on Lebanese territory, the nominal rationale for Syria's presence in Lebanon was undercut. This, in turn, played a key role in the Lebanon's recent political evolution in the direction of independence and democracy.
,
What's more, Israel has received a considerable level of international diplomatic support during the current crisis. Notwithstanding criticisms mounted from various quarters (incuding me) of certain aspects of Israel's current actions, virtually everyone agrees right now that forceful action of some sort (Israeli, Lebanese, or international) to curb Hezbollah is warranted and necessary. I think it should be obvious that widespread sympathy for this point of view is a direct consequence of the fact that Israel is not semi-permanently occupying Lebanese territory. It's the fact of withdrawal that makes Hezbollah's recent activities clearly illegitimate and unacceptable.
It's notable that instead of challenging the basic idea that withdrawal from Lebanon was a very smart and useful step in Israel's Lebanon policy, withdrawal critics instead blame it for causing problems with Israel's Palestinian policy. This is an almost silly idea. To state the obvious the Israel-Palestine conflict is a thorny issue not amenable to easy resolution. Resolving it would require a peace plan acceptable to supermajorities of both publics and nobody has such a plan in hand.
The Palestinians didn't reject the offer made at Camp David because Israel withdrew from Lebanon; they rejected it because they didn't like the offer. That Israelis regard the offer as exceedingly generous is neither here nor there. It's easy for Israel to devise a plan that Israel thinks gives the Palestinians their due. The difficulty is coming up with a plan that the Palestinians think is fair. Conversely, when Saudi Arabia put forth a peace plan that Arabs regarded as very generous Israel rejected it.
The failure of the two sides to agree is, obviously, a huge problem -- the main problem, and the consequences of that inability to agree have been bad for everyone involved. But that's the problem. Continuing to occupy Lebanese land would have only made things worse.
Kinda OT on the Lebanon issue, but on the issue of finding a workable Israeli-Palestinian peace plan both sides can agree on: Have the parties ever given serious consideration to submitting the issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ, also called the "World Court")? I realize that, being a lawyer, I may have some unrealistically skewed vision of the potential for success of such an approach. And I do understand that imposition of a solution from outside is doomed to failure (a la 1948).
But this wouldn't be imposition...I'm talking about both sides agreeing to submit the issue to the court for it to come up with a specific solution -- within certain fixed parameters, e.g., it has to result in a viable Palestinian state; it has to protect Israel's legitimate security interests; some right of return should be recognized but there can be compensation for that right instead, etc. I mean, everyone always says that the basic outline of a plan is clear to all involved, it's just the fine-tuning where things break down. Those sorts of details -- where to draw the border, e.g., -- are the sorts of issues courts can be quite good at handling (and which the ICJ does handle a lot of -- international border disputes are a very common case for that court). Another benefit is that by having someone else make the actual decision for them, the parties can deflect some of the political heat for the details.
July 20, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps negotiations could be facilitated by professional mediators, who are usually retired judges with some record of accomplishments.
By the way, it is not clear that Hezbollah would refuse to move away from the border and disarm if the topic was negotiated and some of their postulates were met. In particular, Shebaa Farms is a small plot that Israel could give up without much indignity, the remaining Hezbollah captives (they are not prisoners in ordinary sense) released, and a meaningful (and conditional) security guarantee given to Lebanon.
What I would view as a meaningful guarantee would be a bond from which Lebanon could collect penalties in case of Israeli transgression. Destruction of property could be assesed and the value doubled (tripled?), some rate could be agreed upon for the lives. Courts in some neutral country could adjudicate claims. For that matter, Lebanon could post a similar bond (and perhaps Hezbollah could post a separate bond, Iranians could provide a financial guarantee). The amounts that third parties could give should be carefully regulated. However, it would look rather silly if, say, US or Iran, would fork several billions dollars to the ally to bash the adversary to some extend -- as the money, with punitive damages, would go to that very adversary.
UN peacekeepers surely would not do the trick.
July 20, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice idea although I have a quibble with one part:
July 20, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel doesn't recognize verdicts of the ICJ and thinks the ICJ is biased against them, so I think this idea is pretty much a non-starter.
See the somewhat recent press coverage of the ICJ decision involving the placement of the security fence/wall for more information about Israel's views of the ICJs. They didn't accept that decision either.
(Note: I'm not commenting on whether or not the Israeli view of the ICJ is justified, as I would have to read more abou the basis for that view to comment, I just know that that is the general Israeli view. Similar to their view of the UN in general, I think.)
July 20, 2006 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, your analysis seems reasonable, but allow me to quibble about this part:
"Notwithstanding criticisms mounted from various quarters (incuding me) of certain aspects of Israel's current actions, virtually everyone agrees right now that forceful action of some sort (Israeli, Lebanese, or international) to curb Hezbollah is warranted and necessary. I think it should be obvious that widespread sympathy for this point of view is a direct consequence of the fact that Israel is not semi-permanently occupying Lebanese territory. It's the fact of withdrawal that makes Hezbollah's recent activities clearly illegitimate and unacceptable."
I don't agree.
Note that I'm not saying that Hizballah isn't a problem for the Lebanese government and for Israel - obviously it is. And obviously it would be better if they went away. And I agree that sympathy for the view you mention is partly the result of Israel's withdrawal.
Nonetheless Hizballah exists for a reason - and unless that reason is addressed, it's not going away.
And that reason is not entirely the Israel occupation of Lebanon. Certainly that is the proximate historical cause of the creation of Hizballah. But it is not the reason Hizballah continues to exist, despite the Israeli withdrawal.
Neither is support from Syria or Iran the reason for Hizballah's continued existence.
The reasons for Hizballah's continued existence are several:
1) They have the support of the minority Shia population.
2) They have an ideology which is anti-Israeli.
3) They have a "cause" which is related to Israeli actions vis-a-vis Lebanese prisoners, land disputes such as the Shebaa Farms and the Litani River, and because of their ideology, the Palestinian question. (To what degree the Palestinian question is primary is unclear, but it is a factor, if for no other reason than propaganda value.)
Without making progress in resolving these underlying issues, Hizballah is not going away.
It has been suggested elsewhere that the UN could conceivably put enough troops on the ground to suppress Hizballah operations, for years if necessary, in order to buy the time to create a peace treaty that would address some of these issues.
I am skeptical that the UN can put enough troops on the ground to do this, and I am skeptical that it would do so long enough for a resolution that addresses the issues that allows Hibzallah to continue to derive support from the Shia and Syria and Iran.
And the odds are that any attempted use of military force directly against Hizballah would merely cause either a Lebanese civil war (with or without the presence of UN troops), or an insurgency against those UN troops.
I don't think the Balkans situation is comparable, because there the Yugoslav military had surrendered, and the opposing force benefited from the presence of the UN peace keeping force. I don't think the same situation applies in Lebanon.
As an aside, the last sentence in your paragraph may be correct in some sense, but the fact remains that Hizballah considers itself at war with Israel over the issues I mentioned above, so the mere fact of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon (after, note, an EIGHTEEN YEAR occupation) doesn't address the issues involved. One can say that Hizballah might have been smarter not to do what they did, given the outcome, but the fact of the matter is it is not surprising that they did so.
It's also not clear yet who the losers will be - other than the civilians of Lebanon, of course.
July 20, 2006 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Similar to their view of the UN in general, I think."
Which is because of the same reason you cite - they don't like the decisions. And they ignore them.
When it comes to the ONE UN resolution calling on Lebanon to disarm Hizballah, THAT one they want immediate compliance with.
It's called hypocrisy.
July 20, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink