Translated material
We write Lebanon, Syria in our minds
Konstantin Kapitonov
Ehud Barak promised to withdraw troops from Lebanon by July 2000. Will he take a "historic step" despite Damascus' resistance?
Ehud Barak promised to withdraw troops from Lebanon by July 2000. Will he take a "historic step" despite Damascus' resistance?
By speaking out in support of Israel's fight against Hezbollah, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin incurred the wrath of Palestinians in the West Bank (Photo: AP )
Ehud Barak does not want to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor Benjamin Netanyahu. He is convinced that the Arabs need to be spoken differently - not in the language of ultimatums and force, but by looking for a compromise in all areas of the Middle East settlement: Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian. In recent months, the Israeli prime minister seemed to have done everything in his power to get the peace process off the ground: he tried to resume dialogue with Syria, transferred part of the promised territories to the control of the Palestinian Authority and, finally, did what none of them dared to do. his predecessors, named specific dates for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the 15-kilometer “security zone” in southern Lebanon. In early March, Barak's cabinet announced that the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) would withdraw from Lebanon by July 2000.
The Arabs are persistently seeking the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 425 of 1978, which demands the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied Lebanese territory. It would be logical to expect that a show of goodwill would be appreciated. Alas, everything is happening the other way around: in the south of Lebanon, bombs are exploding and Katyusha rockets are being fired. Increased activity by Hezbollah militants, which have killed several Israeli soldiers in recent weeks, has forced Barak to resort to retaliatory military strikes. What's going on? The leaders of Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, clearly do not benefit from the Israeli prime minister acquiring the image of a peacemaker. After all, Israel for them is an enemy that must be fought until the “Zionist entity” is destroyed (this is what they officially call the State of Israel).
Lebanese guerrillas
The history of this conflict, during which more than 900 Israeli soldiers were killed, stretches back to 1982, when Israeli troops invaded Lebanon and reached the capital, Beirut. The punitive military operation "Peace to Galilee" was a response to systematic rocket and artillery attacks on northern Israel from Lebanese territory, carried out by militants of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other radical Islamic movements. It is no coincidence that extremists have chosen Lebanon as a springboard for attacks on Israel. After the civil war of the late 70s and early 80s, the term “Lebanonization” entered the international lexicon. The country was fragmented into "appanage principalities" not controlled by the central government. The government turned out to be so weak that it had no choice but to agree to the presence of Israeli troops on Lebanese territory, which continues to this day.
At the cost of incredible efforts, the IDF managed to expel the Palestinians from Lebanon. However, the Israelis fought not only with the PLO. The cause of the fight against Israel was continued by the extremist organization of Shiite Muslims, Hezbollah, which emerged in 1983.
The fact is that when the IDF entered Lebanon, it was welcomed by Shiite Muslims - their centuries-old contradictions with Sunni Muslims were reflected, so radical that the Shiites were ready to support the “non-believers.” But Israel did not take advantage of this support and relied exclusively on Maronite Christians. The South Lebanon Army (SLA) was created from the Christian population of the country (currently there are about three thousand people in its ranks). Israel fully funds the SLA, which is entrusted with control over the “buffer” border zone.
This embittered the Shiite youth, and they were drawn to the ideas of Khomeini, which were gaining strength in Iran. It was then that a group emerged from the depths of the Shiite Muslim movement AMAL (Lebanese Resistance Units) calling itself Hezbollah (Party of Allah).
In the mid-80s, the author of these lines had to visit the southern regions of Lebanon, meet and talk with Hezbollah leaders. At that time they were ordinary terrorists who also made a living by kidnapping foreigners. Today Hezbollah is a small but well-trained army. Behind it are Iran, Syria and Lebanon, which provide the militants with everything they need.
Over two decades, Hezbollah's techniques and tactics have changed. Previously, militants staged ambushes and went into direct conflict with Israeli soldiers, suffering significant losses in the process. Today, the Party of Allah warriors prefer to mine roads or fire at Israelis with Katyushas and rocket launchers. Using the support of the population of Southern Lebanon, which considers the Israelis to be occupiers, they are waging a real guerrilla war. And against partisans any regular army is powerless.
"What are we fighting for"?
When the "security zone" was created in southern Lebanon, the IDF soldiers stationed there were filled with pride because they were performing an important mission in defense of the fatherland. Today, many years later, a completely different mood reigns here. There is a growing realization that the Israeli military presence in Lebanon makes no sense. "The sooner we leave here, the better. We will never win this war," says renowned Israeli radio columnist Carmela Menashe. Apparently, it expresses the secret thoughts of many military personnel.
It would seem that there is only one way out - to leave. In the end, the Israelis are even ready to accept the fact that the withdrawal of troops will be perceived as a victory for Hezbollah. However, the trouble is that the departure of the IDF will significantly worsen the situation on the Israeli-Lebanese border. Militants will now be separated from cities and settlements in Israel not by kilometers, but by meters. If today the militants of this organization have to use rocket launchers, then after the withdrawal of Israeli troops they will be able to hit targets with conventional mortars. Where is the way out? For a long time, the Lebanese problem was a chicken-and-egg problem. The Israelis told the Lebanese and Syrians: “Prove that you are able to neutralize Hezbollah, and we will leave southern Lebanon.” They answered: “Hezbollah” is a freedom fighter opposing foreign (read Israeli) occupiers. Withdraw your troops, and then we will take care of stability and calm in the region."
Today there is no doubt that after the Israelis leave, Hezbollah will not calm down. It is not surprising that the decision of Barak's cabinet to withdraw troops caused a storm of emotions within Israel. Not everyone approves of him. A number of politicians, including former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, believe that in order to avoid further losses, Israel should withdraw unilaterally, without any preconditions. Peres is convinced that if Hezbollah continues its attacks, Israel will have the moral right to take retaliatory action and can count on the support of the world community.
A completely different position is expressed by one of the developers of Operation Peace to Galilee, former Chief of General Staff Rafael Eitan. His supporters fear that Syrian troops will receive a convenient springboard for an attack on Israel. “The withdrawal from southern Lebanon will have such serious consequences that troops will soon have to be sent in again, and this will require even more blood,” the general warns.
Hardliners are convinced that withdrawal from southern Lebanon is possible only on one condition - the complete disarmament of Hezbollah. However, this would require a large-scale military operation, which today, apparently, no one will undertake.
Barack passed. Assad - accepted?
The key to solving the Lebanese problem lies in Damascus. “The only option for us,” Barak believes, “is a peace agreement with Syria, after which Lebanon will conclude peace with Israel.” Barak expresses his readiness to return the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, to the Syrians. However, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad is doing everything to disrupt the achievement of a peace treaty. The elderly, terminally ill Syrian leader is obsessed with hatred of Israel.
Since Tel Aviv does not want confrontation with Damascus, it cannot present the Syrians with an ultimatum: rein in Hezbollah and we will leave. What remains is diplomacy - difficult negotiations mediated by great powers that do not produce quick results. And economic leverage. Israel must make this war unprofitable for Syria. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians work in Lebanon and bring money into the state treasury, without which Syria can no longer exist. This means we need to find a way to cut off this financial flow if necessary. For example, create conditions where Syrians will be forced to leave their jobs and return to Damascus. This is what Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi did at one time, expelling tens of thousands of Egyptian workers from the country.
But what about the irreconcilable “Lebanese partisans”? The Israeli Prime Minister warns: Hezbollah must know that for every attack on Jewish settlements there will be a retaliatory strike. However, it is possible that Barak’s cabinet will reconsider its “historic decision” before July...