Who Will Speak for Lebanon?
There are, it appears now, only three options left for what will become of Lebanon. None are good, but they are worth laying out as we track the moves and countermoves.
Option One: Israel invades, Israel stays, Israel unhappy, Repeat.
Option Two: Syria comes in, likely not militarily, but is invited in by all parties, inculding us, to reign in Hizbollah, placate Israel, and return to 2004 when they were still in there. Syria, one of the few Arab allies of Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, continues strong ties with Iran. Syria gets something for this, perhaps commitment by us against regime change. Bush's "Arab Spring" long gone.
Option Three: Civil War in Lebanon. Impossible, that's what they said about Iraq. Lebanon has survived on a lie, basically: the agreement to end the civil war rested on two facts -- Syria, and a promise to memorialize the constitutional structure in a way that simply would assume that the country was equal. Why would Shiites agree to that now? What incentive do they have? A lot of Lebanon is angry with them for their brinksmanship and terror; Christians likely only make up 20% of the population (no census are allowed). Perhaps the lie was unsustainable, that Lebanon's failure to control Hizbollah was proof that the system could never survive. But, the myth has now been blown apart, and what comes next is anybody's guess.
That's a concise and sobering summary of the situation. The only questions left are 1) which bad option is least bad and 2) how painful getting to that outcome is going to be.
It seems like Option 2 is the "best" -- in that it minimizes loss of life in the short-term. But it doesn't do much for that whole self-determination thing.
PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.July 25, 2006 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of these options will happen.
1. No chance Israel will reoccupy Lebanon. Does Israel want to lose the same war twice? (A UN proxy is possible, though.)
2. Regime change in Syria is a nonissue (Israel was always opposed to it, and who's Bush to get in the way?)
3. Civil war? Unlikely. Hezbollah (or is it Hizbullah? I've been asking all my Lebanese friends and everyone gives me a different answer) won the civil war. No entity in Lebanon can take them on. Hell, Syria can't take them on. In fact, as we're finding out, neither can the IDF.
Hezb is going to call the shots for a long time. Better get used to it.
Peace in the region is possible, though: Shebaa back to Lebanon, Golan back to Syria, negotiated 2-state settlement based on '67 borders, and security arrangement with Iran.
I know that's a lot, and too many Lilliputians run Israel/America/Iran/Syria/Lebanon to make it happen, but it's the only solution.
Any effort to solve the problem piecemeal is bound to fail.
What this war has shown is that time is not on Israel's side. Not only Hizbullah will come out victorious from this encounter, but their message will resonate: No place in Israel will be safe from rockets/missiles (wait until the Zelzals --earthquake missiles!-- are deployed)
Sharon once said that time was on Israel's side. The man has said many dumb things in his sad life. But that takes the cake: a dumber statement would be hard to compose.
Meanwhile, watch for the Shia crescent meme to develop. The biggest crock I've heard.
July 25, 2006 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The possibility exists that the Western powers (including Israel of course)have admitted Iraq was a muffed tee shot and have called for a mulligan. Their hope is that Lebanon will not get mired in Civil War and sectarian violence as has occurred in Iraq.
There is reason to look at this. Hezbollah is in Lebanon. Hezbollah has direct connections and support from Iran and Syria (both on Bush's list). Second, Lebanon, while at some risk of civil war, is less likely than Iraq to fall to that level. Third, if other, perhaps non-Hezbollah insurgents filter into Lebanon (as they did in Iraq) it will be relatively easy to determine where they are coming from. Finally, if the shaky democracy there can somehow be sustained, even if by proxy standards, the possibility exists that Iran, Syria, and Iraq situations all change.
July 25, 2006 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think these scenarios might be avoided by a negotiation with Hezbollah to settle its major grievances in return for its complete disarmament. It would probably require giving the Shia more of a voice in the Lebanese government (my understanding is the current system leaves them under-represented, so this might be a positive step toward democracy). And it would probably require the release of Lebanese prisoners. Sheba farms is a tougher issue, but I think the claim that it should be Lebanese is more justified than many are willing to admit. Historically, it was farmed (and the land owned) by the Lebanese of the nearby village of Shebaa (clearly in Lebanon). The UN did include the farms in Syrian territory when they drew borders, but given the fact that the land was owned and farmed by Lebanese, that seems to have been a mistake. Israel, of course, now controls it along with the Golan Heights. There is a UN resolution (497) that requires Israel to end its annexation of the Golan. Maybe Israel's honoring of that resolution could be the trade-off for Hizbollah being disarmed and honoring UN resolution 1559? This seems like the start of a more comprehensive solution.
Unfortuantely, I fear the US and Israel don't care to honor 497, and prefer their usual course of using military action to crush the enemy. Unfortunately, this tactic only seems to make the enemy more radical.
July 26, 2006 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Juliette
A couple of questions. What is France's potential role in Lebanon. As the former colonial power it maintains an active interest in Lebanon.
The press presents two shades of the same story. The first is that all of Lebanon is opposed to Israel's efforts. The second is that the Balkanized nature of Lebanon that France created is already coming to the fore. Israel in largely going after Shiia parts of the country is expanding the gulf between the Shiia and the Sunni, Druize and Christian parts of Lebanon. Do you have a sense how these divisions are breaking down?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 26, 2006 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The correct usage is "rein in," no g. The metaphor derives from the reins of a horse, not the reign of a king.
July 26, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arabic uses a non-Latin alphabet, and it seems there is no universally agreed on system of transliteration. You see the same thing with Hebrew and Russian words. Examples of the latter: tsar/czar, Kiev/Kieff.
July 26, 2006 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel hasn't been under existential threat since Egypt agreed to a separate peace. For that the Israelis withdrew to the 1967 line. With that, they don't need to go back to the 1967 line on any other front, and they won't.
July 26, 2006 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink