Middle East Update: Renewed Turmoil in Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon (July 28, 2006)
John H. Kelly, formerly U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon and Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia willbe our guest at this discussion.
posted by IIF BlogMeister @ 7:04 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
The following is an email sent to some IIF members regarding Israel and the Jul 28th IIF meeting:
I feel that Israel does not trust a real settlement as they are not a viable economy if peace breaks out.
As long as terrorism is front and center, Israel can maintain a connection to the Holocaust and a perception that they might be eliminated at any time unless they are very tough. If that is removed through a settlement I think Israel's viability as a state is very questionable over the 30 years that follows a settlement.
A state based on religious/ethnic "specialness" doesn't look viable over the long haul whether it's Iran or Israel in the 21st century.
_________
Separate from the email above, if someone would ask Ambassador Kelly to answer the question, "Is there a strategic justification for the US in it's strong support of Israel?" (not moral or domestic political justification, strategic)
Jim C.
I like to use the "Other" identity to post a message. We should probably make that the default.
Jim, that is surprising point of view. I have never heard anyone say that Israel is economically troubled. It seems like a diverse, industrial and high tech economy.
Isn't it true that peace with Jordan and Egypt was good for all three parties? To me it seems like peace offers economic carrots to all the rabbits involved. Many in the region realize that but it only takes a few spoilers.
Jason, I believe the Palestinians are living with 80% unemployment and on $2.00 a day.
Jason: The question posed by Jim C. on economic viability is valid in my view. Not to diminishthe hard work, creativity anf dedication of teh Israelis, but how many parts of the world could be turned into "economic miracles" if they received the amount of aid that Israel and Egypt receive from the US? The PRC (before the growth in export earnings) received similar amounts but from expatriates remitting, and that really started the PRCs economic development organically. Israel and Egypt would be different places (economically and technologically) if it was not for the huge flows if US aid. THat is at the bottom of the question in my view
Jason - peace agreements with Jordon and Egypt didn't cost any Palestinian territory. Israel's holding out for West Bank settlements and unsustainable Palestine has been a policy for years and there is no sign of change. I don't think the Israeli economy without US assistance is as good as you seem to feel.
It would be great news to test whether you or I am right on their economy because it would have to be preceeded by an agreement between Israel and Palestine.
Jim C
The economic point remains more asserted than proved. Nevertheless, I will keep an eye out for some analysis of that idea.
Here is an interesting column:
The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.
Hunker Down With History By Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 7/18/06
In my naive view, the success of Israel is as much due to the fact that it was settled by a bunch of sophisticated, motivated and wealthy European Jews as it is to the $3-4b annual US aid. I suspect that the aid could be compensated by Israel's economic integration into the region and it could become the Taiwan of the Middle East.
Rick,
Actually I agree with you more than I first thought. Central to the analysis of the recent events are a few key questions.
Is Israel's counter disproportionate?
Are they hostages or POWs?
I haven't made up my mind completely on either of these. Jeffrey Goldstein of New Yorker fame described Israel's attacks as "pinpricks". On the other hand Ambassador Kelly writes that Lebanon is "on its knees".
For now I will assume the answer lies somewhere in between. I guess I would like to see the targets limited mostly to the south. I cannot see a strong enough reason for Israel to knock out seaports and airports.
Concerning the second question, how shall we regard Hezbollah? They certainly have used their fair share of terrorism as well as conventional military tactics. They do, I believe, use their compatriots as human shields to even the odds. On the whole in this latest round of conflict I think they must be regarded as unlawful combatants. Nonetheless, Israel's obligations under the Geneva Conventions are not different because of that.
I guess it is important to step back and look at the past 12 days by asking: Why?
Iran and Syria both seem to be uneasy with the situation Hezbolla finds itself in and them by implications. The US likes ot make connections with Iran and Syria, but the Bush adminstration will have to meet very high standards of proof after its infamous use of questionable link is the past. Certainly Iran and Syria both would love to be able to cheer Hezbolla, but they are more prudent than many expected and understand the risks of direct confrontation with the IDF.
Aparrently Hezbolla acted on their own and if hindsight can be trusted they seem to have been taken by surprise when Israel responded forcefully. WHat was they gamble?
To me it seems like the hypotesis that they were trying to split the Palestinian support for Hamas as Hamas seemed to be slowly moving towards recognitionof Israel (under duress) in order to have their political victory become a reality. After all, winning the elections imposed new demads on Hamas and they were slowly coming along (maybe?)
Did Hezbolla hope to radicalize some Hamas support into their camp? Or is the Sunni/Shia distinctions between Hamas and Hezbolla to difficult to overcome?
I know Charlie thinks this is to Machiavellian. HOw so? I would have to say that Nazrallah seems to be very good student of Machiavelli.
So, what did we learn from Thursday night's discussion on the Lebanese crisis?
John Kelly sees the problem as a dumb Bush administration not seeing the need to negotiate an immediate ceasefire. Cedric Suzman of SCIS underestimates the threat of Hezbollah on a scale with the IRA and Basques. Jacobus, in blog comments, is still skeptical of Syrian and Iranian complicity in the actions of Hezbollah. Jason still ponders the issue of Israel's proportional response.
Hey guys, we need to focus on the bigger picture. Hezbollah is a tool of Iran who is using Syria as Hezbollah's puppetmaster. Iran DOESN'T WANT TO NEGOTIATE! Kelly's State Dept thinking only sees peace through diplomacy, and one-sided compromise is ALWAYS better than diplomacy backed by force. The world should have learned from Neville Chamberlain the problems with that thinking.
Today's WSJ contains a revealing interview with Walid Jumblat that shows how pivotal will be the outcome of this showdown with Hezbollah/Syria/Iran. The U.S. needs to let Assad and Syria twist in the wind with Iran and pay the price to the Sunni world for helping Iran build a Shiite Crescent and assert Persian power throughout the Arab world.
For the moment I agree with Jacobus that Hezbollah is acting on its own initiative, with the deep support of Iran and facilitation by Syria.
As the memory of Israel pulling out of Lebanon in 2000 fades, Hezbollah does not want its reputation to languish. They have been planning, stockpiling and waiting for an opportune moment to shine. They are led by ambitious men who seek a larger role in the affairs of Lebanon and abroad. They are believers in the Iranian Islamic Revolution which would more aptly be named the Shia Revolution.
Jacobus wonders about their strategy. They have certainly shown themselves to be strategic, big-pictures thinkers, so we should not be surprised that they have one.
Perhaps they are surprised at the level of Israel's response, but they were certainly prepared for it with a network of tunnels, well-hidden rockets and autonomous command structure. I believe that they did in fact want to lure Israel into their own territory where they know they can at least survive - which is all they need for a symbolic victory.
Those Sunni Muslims who like a group like Hamas tend to give a Hezbollah a more mixed review, owing to distrust. Just look at the Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian governments which initially pitched an unconditional condemnation of Hezbollah but are now changing their tunes. Similarly, the Maronites and the Druze within Lebanon have become more galvanized behind Hezbollah as the casualties mount and even al-Qaeda is getting jealous.
They have won and Nasrallah, the Muqtada al-Sadr of Lebanon, is basking in the limelight. His strategy is a proven one which has elevated many a demogogue before him. Uncharacteristically, Tom Friedman got it backwards in his column describing it all as a major blunder.
Israel is the big loser, because this just emboldens their enemies and further tarnishes their international reputation.
The US is also a loser as Israel's backer. But this does not represent in any way a threat to the US as Rick suggests. As usual Israel is a liability.
Iran does not really stand that much to gain from this. On the minus side for them, their demagogues now have to vie with Nasrallah. I don't think this will affect the uranium enrichment situation either.
I must admit, I am appreciative but deeply skeptical of Ambassador Kelly's proposal. Even if a tough international force could be put in there, I seriously doubt that Hezbollah would back down and disarm. Their military arm is their pride and joy and will be the very last thing they relinquish. If Hezbollah can beat Israel, it can beat NATO and it can definitely beat the UN.
Post a Comment
<< Home