the gold standard
By Jacob Goldberg

why war now? a Q & A

Q: What was the impetus for this sudden war with Lebanon?
A: The answer is threefold: the domestic Lebanese (Hizbollah), Syria and Iran.
Israel has been holding Hizbollah and other Lebanese prisoners for years. Hizbollah has long promised to release them, with no progress. Hizbollah loved [being in the] headlines. Recently, when everything focused on Hamas and the Palestinians, Hizbollah wanted to take back over the initiative and be dominant again on the agenda. That’s why they took this risk. The critical thing to understand here is that it was a gamble. They did not think that Israel would react the way it reacted. They expected the same limited Israeli reaction of the previous five years whenever the Hizbollah kidnapped soldiers or launched attacks across the border. They miscalculated this time, and they know it. They did not expect the new government of civilians, Olmert and Peretz, non-military generals like Sharon and Barak, to react in such a strong way.

Syria had its own interests. It has been on the defensive for a long time now -- criticized by the U.S. for supporting terrorism, being forced to withdraw from Lebanon, under investigation for involvement in the assassination of the PM of Lebanon, and unable to engage Israel in negotiations over the Golan Heights. Now, Syria thought, it had an opportunity to flex a muscle and reassert its position. They feel stronger because of Iran's support and because the U.S. is embroiled in the Iraqi mess. Assad wanted to send a clear message that, despite the withdrawal from Lebanon, Syria was the real power broker over this country. By giving the Hizbollah the go-ahead, Syria showed that any settlement really depended on their approval and goodwill.

The third circle is Iran, which has been for two years now on the defensive in the face of worldwide criticism of its nuclear project. A flare up between Hizbollah and Israel was deemed as an opportunity for Iran to divert public opinion from its nuclear program to the Arab-Israeli conflict. And this is why it will not be a mistake to look at this war as an Iran-Israel war by proxy.


Q: Why does Israel have to fight two fronts, Hamas and Hizbollah, simultaneously?
A: A lot of people point to differences between these two organizations. They say that Hamas is a democratically-elected government; that Hamas has nothing to do with Hizbollah; and that it continues its attacks from Gaza because Israel did not withdraw yet from the West Bank. Hizbollah, on the other hand, is a terrorist organization with a huge infrastructure that is being operated by external factors, Iran and Syria, which attacks beyond an internationally-recognized boundary, as attested by Security Council Resolution 1559. But I think that this is a very simplistic comparison which ignores the striking resemblance between the two. Firstly, these two are fundamentalist organizations whose goals are not nationalistic but rather religious-Islamic. Secondly, both of them are being financed, trained, and supplied by the same external forces, Syria and Iran. And thirdly, both do not attack "occupied territories" but rather Israeli towns and villages.


Q: Should Israel engage Syria in the confrontation?
A: There is a school of thought in Israel - still a minority - which says that Israel must apply military pressure on the Syrian regime in order to create a motivation for Syria to restrain Hizbollah and make it stop launching rockets, otherwise Syrian interests will be hurt. This is a very daring, innovative idea, because it entails considerable risks, such as serious Syrian retaliation. Syria does have long-range missiles, with non-conventional, chemical warheads.


Q: How do you see the end of the current confrontation?
A: There is almost a consensus that the key to ending the hostilities is a mechanism that would ensure the implementation of Resolution 1559, i.e. disarm Hizbollah, remove it from the border area, with the Lebanese army deploying along the border. But who in Lebanon has the power to disarm Hizbollah? The UN's UNIFIL was proven totally useless and the Lebanese government is too weak. The idea that is forthcoming now is to put together an international force, capable of and ready to fight and station it in South Lebanon. It should consist of soldiers from NATO countries, that must also include units from Arab countries strongly opposed to Hizbollah, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Whether this will happen depends to a large extent on how the hostilities end and the degree of Hizbollah's defeat.

For feedback, contact editor@sdjewishjournal.com.