The recent conflict in Lebanon is not necessarily the beginning of WWIII. While a gruesome situation, any large-scale catastrophe on the level of, say, nuclear war, is highly unlikely. It wouldn’t be in the interest of either Iran or Israel to fire nuclear weapons at each other (well, Iran doesn’t even have any right now). If Iran had a nuclear missile and fired at Tel Aviv, there is no way it wouldn’t also do severe damage to Palestinians, as well as to Al Quds (“The Holy” aka Jerusalem). Israel may be able to hit Iran, but in response it would then find millions more Arabs and Muslims attacking it, and whatever credibility Israel had in that region would surely be gone. Furthermore, if Israel aimed at Tehran it is likely it could hit a significant population of Jews. Considering that, from an Israeli perspective, every conflict involving the Jewish state is really a matter of survival for the Jews and Judaism as a whole, Israel can’t afford to spill more drop of innocent Jewish blood.
Munich
As my satellite TV was temporarily out of commission at the beginning of the summer, and I needed a break from my voracious reading habits, I had to have some outlet entertaining my brain. For a few weeks I rented several DVD's, one of which being Munich. And how timely a rent it was. A day after watching it, the war in Lebanon exploded. History repeating itself. In this land, history is really the present.
As for the movie itself, I don’t understand how the pro-Israeli side could perceive it as apologetic. It was sympathetic to the Mossad agents and, to a lesser extent, the “collateral damage” caught in the crossfire. Some of the characters clearly saw that there were moral complexities in the whole affair. On the other hand, I cannot recall one Arab, Muslim, or Palestinian in the film portrayed in such a way. Do any of them have consciences? Rarely in any film will you see those people portrayed as anything but terrorists, greedy oil-rich sheiks, or defective in some other way. Is it art imitating life, or the other way around?
Syriana
I titled this bit, not after the movie, which I also recently rented, but because many analysts believe the power behind these attacks are the rogue states of Iran and Syria. It’s not surprising that we quickly want to connect this conflict to them, for militaries are built around attacking states rather than terrorist networks. That’s why a world war is a possibility – attack these two states, and not only will Iraq get much worse, but the rest of the world will get sucked in as well.
I don’t know how deeply Iran and Syria are involved. Yes, they both hate Israel. The suggestion that they’re both behind this implies cooperation. I don’t think these two governments are very friendly towards each other. They’re both competing for economic and cultural dominance of the region. Now that the Iraqi regime has been overthrown, Syria is the last bastion of Ba’athist power. As we know, this is a secular dictatorship. Iran is an Islamic Republic and the only true theocratic government in the world. There is a suggestion that Iran, which has given funding and support for Hezbollah, a militant Shi’ite resistance born in the initial Israeli occupation of Lebanon over 20 years old during conflicts with the PLO, wants to take attention away from itself and buy time to keep pursuing nukes. But if it’s a well-known fact that Iran already supports Hezbollah, why would they risk further retaliation by such an obvious act of aggression? Syria, similarly, has been accused of aiding Saddam loyalists in Iraq. While they do have territorial disputes with Israel over the Golan Heights and Sheeba farms, possible retaliation from Israel and the US is enough of a deterrent to planning an attack on either state. Furthermore, Assad strikes me as a reluctant leader, as he assumed leadership after the death of his father while he was in medical practice. He seems to follow the party line because he has to; I don’t know how much power he really has.
If you want to blame anyone for the attack on Israel, it should be Hezbollah itself. They must have known Israel would retaliate. Perhaps they thought it would cause the Lebanese to support them as a defense force while laying the blame squarely on Israeli aggression. Am I missing something? Have they forgotten the Cedar Revolution? The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri from Syrian agents?
Anti-Semitism
I read somewhere that Ahmadinejad’s infamous statement about Israel was mistranslated. He actually said something like “wipe Israel from the pages of history.” In a way, I think that statement is even more chilling. “Pages of history” implies destruction so great as to make people even forget Israeli Jews existed at all, which is consistent with the logic of a Holocaust denier – if you deny a past atrocity against a people, and the sick bigotry that fueled it, then it makes it easier to dehumanize them and justify a current atrocity. Now, there is another possible meaning. Maybe he meant that he wants to correct an ongoing injustice that he feels is long overdue, so his statement was really a salve for the festering wound of Muslim pride that the success of Israel represents.
Criticism of Israeli aggression and human rights abuses is not anti-Semitic, even though some anti-Semites use it as an excuse to defame Jews as a whole. We can understand why Israel acts as it does. That doesn’t excuse it, however.
The conventional wisdom is that, once again, fanatics attacked Israel, and Israel is engaged in legitimate self-defense. Any reasonable person understands the need for a response. All states have the right to defend themselves from attack, and Hezbollah clearly attacked them. According to international law, jus ad bellum (the right of states to go to war) requires UN approval, but states engage in war all the time without the blessing of international councils. However, there is also jus in bello (rules of war) once a military is already engaged, and the near universal condemnation of Israel, far from being a case of worldwide anti-Semitism, is simply a recognition of that.
The problem is that people have either an overtly narrow and incomplete understanding of the conflict timeline, or use virtually meaningless generalizations that, again, leave out crucial details.
There is a record of violence in the region, documented as far back as biblical times. So what? That doesn't make history an irrelevent series of cycles with no bearing on the present conflicts. Perhaps the reason this region's violence gets hyped is because it is at the heart of the two most populous religions in the world (Christianity and Islam) and their collective narratives, as well as Judaism. What many ask is why this largely sandy area is so important to so many people. There is a geographic reason for its highly contested status. For thousands of years it was at the crossroads of important trade-routes, and several empires were competing for dominance. It’s sort of like a bottleneck, big powers needed to squeeze through, and the people who lived there, however defiant, were basically small bands of nomads who had little chance of defeating imperial powers.
But while there have often been skirmishes among the Semitic tribes who settled there, it was not, categorically, what it is now – Jews versus Arabs. This is a recent conflict with roots in the early 20th century, or perhaps as far back as the late 19th century. Under both Ottoman and British rule, Arabs took care of Jewish holy sites in Palestine. Some might even trace it back to the Crusades. It is said that under Christian (Byzantine) rule, Jewish sites were in disarray, while under Muslim rule they were restored. Arabs saw it as a slap in the face when Zionists rewrote history and portrayed them as conquerors, when Jews and Muslims lived in harmony for so long. At the same time, there has been a white-washing of Muslim aggression (Islamic powers were not totally innocent when Christians launched the Crusades in the Middle Ages).
To get a more accurate perspective on this issue, we must look at the last century. The situation is not completely the fault of Israelis. Arab leadership made bad decisions and Arab states did a poor job handling the large influx of refugees, sometimes acting with indifference to the plight of Palestinians, while politicians incorporated their struggle into their rhetoric to gain the support of the public for Pan-Arab imperialism and hegemony. Even if the UN partition plan was unfair, the all or nothing stance of Arab states only hurt Palestinians. Instead of getting 45% of their land for Palestinian state, they got nothing.
Let’s look at the current cycle of violence. As far as I know, it goes something like this:
Arafat dies, leaving a power vacuum in the PA. Hamas win in election and continues to refuse to recognize the state of Israel, or disavow armed conflict. Israel withholds money from the PA. The US and the EU, while also cutting off funds, outline plans to aid Palestinians by giving to NGO’s. (Unfortunately, many of them are corrupt, and the aid falls far short of helping basic infrastructure needs.) Militants under the aegis of Hamas captured Israeli soldiers, breaking the cease-fire agreement. Israel captures members of the newly formed Hamas government and raids the Gaza strip (the world’s largest open air prison). Palestinian civilians are killed and more infrastructure destroyed. Meanwhile, 3 Lebanese civilians are captured and imprisoned. Hezbollah kidnaps 3 soldiers and kill 2 while firing rockets at civilian areas in Haifa. They make typical demands – stop controlling the occupied territories, release prisoners, etc. Israel invades Lebanon, killing over a thousand and leveling Beirut, while a million Lebanese become refugees.
This undermines the small progress made after Israel evacuated the settlements in the West Bank last year. While Palestinians have more control over Gaza, basic operations like their economy, infrastructure, and travel are still controlled by Israel. Curfews are still imposed, and if Palestinians go to their homes from work or a hospital after the curfew, soldiers have the right to shoot them. Palestinians are often shot arbitrarily from the security fence (wall), as well as imprisoned and tortured. Palestinians are still burdened with checkpoints. Yes, it was unfair to the Israelis who had to leave their homes in Gaza, but they were well compensated by the government. No one in the media seems to mention the unpaid Palestinians labor force that helped them move out of Gaza.
Until there is true justice for the Arabs, both from Israel, and from the Arab regimes, the wounds of the ME will continue to fester and stink.
