Israel's arrogance may lead to its own peril

By Muslehuddin Ahmad
21 July 2006, 18:00 PM
Israeli air strikes continue in Lebanon (top) and Gaza (bottom). PHOTO: AFP
If I were an Israeli I would have certainly asked my leaders as to what future does Israel have when it could not come to terms with Arab neighbours even after 57 years of its existence in the region. Future appears bleak because of its arrogance. Its arrogance and land greed may destroy the Road Map initiative and strengthen Hezbollah-Hamas aim and drive to One-State solution against Jewish extremists' "Greater Israel" based on the myth of the Biblical "Promised Land."

Does Israel derive such arrogance from America? This question leads one to suggest that Israel is an extension of America in the region already equipped with nuclear weapons. Israel is a mighty military power and goes for collective punishment of the Arab population whenever it chooses to do so even for small offences committed by any one of them in the region.

It is known to the world that several Arab countries and particularly Palestinians and Lebanese are at war with Israel as the latter is an occupier of the Arab land. Israel occupies major part of Palestine and still occupies Sheba farm which Lebanon claims to be its territory. So sudden killing of one or two Israeli soldiers and abduction of another by the Palestinians (Hamas) which happened on June 25 should have been treated as normal war actions against mass killing of Palestinians by Israel from time to time. The offer of Hamas was exchange of Arab prisoners in Israeli jail.

This would have enabled Corporal Gilad Shalit to walk back home. Instead Israel went for "disproportionate" military response. Result was obviousmassive destruction of Palestinian lives and properties in Gaza. Kassam rockets did not stop; they continued to fly over to Israel to do some small mischief there. It is quite possible that under the present volatile situation Corporal Shalit may have to be carried back home instead of his walking back home.

Lebanon episode was similar retaliation from Hezbollah, probably timed to coincide with Hamas operation, against Israel's continued occupation of Sheba farm and keeping thousands of Arabs including Lebanese nationals in Israeli jail. Hezbollah killed eight (some say three) Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more and sought exchange of them against Arab prisoners in Israeli jailsomething that Hamas also demanded. There are, of course, questions whether Hezbollah should have done it at all at this stage knowing well the nature of Israeli government. But, anyway, it happened. The sensible and indeed best course for Israel would have been to engage the other concerned governments (President Mahmud Abbas of Palestinian Authority and western supported Lebanese government), where such episodes took place, and negotiate the release of the kidnapped soldiers. The world would have supported Israel and blamed Hezbollah.

If the lives of the soldiers were more important to Israel than show of its arrogance and military might, Israel could easily release many Arab prisoners, if not all, to obtain the release of the kidnapped soldiers. It did so before and later captured even more to compensate for the reduction of Arab population in the Israeli jail. One of the parents of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers said in his interview to the media that Israel earlier entered into such negotiations and obtained good results, but he was baffled that this time Israel decided to launch a war which has made the fate of his son terribly uncertain.

Indeed, the whole world is helpless when it comes to dealing with Israel as America will always do whatever it takes to protect Israel. This is why when the rest of the G8 countries in St. Petersburg summit last wanted ceasefire, American President Bush continued to harp on the same theme that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself, but not by destroying another country. Indeed, President Bush looked very agitated, even more agitated than Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, when he spoke about the situation in Lebanon as if he was defending his own country. He continued to press on the point even during his private mutterings, unfortunately when the microphone was on, with Prime Minister Blair that Syria must do something to stop Hezbollah.

How could Syria help when Syria was out of Lebanon? President Bush also said "the root of the problem is Hezbollah." Hezbollah is, of course, a problem but Israel is the bigger problem as the occupier of the Arab land. If occupation is vacated, there will be no more of such "problem"Hezbollah and Hamas as resistance groups (terrorist in the eyes of Israel and the western world) will disappear. Who wants to sacrifice life unnecessarily?

What has Israel achieved by launching a deadly war against Lebanon, where America and the western world took painstaking efforts recently to install pro-western government? Has it got back its kidnapped soldiers? No, and the chances of getting them back alive appear very slim today.

Israel has destroyed the economy of Lebanon, which was trying to emerge from destruction earlier inflicted by Israel and civil war over a period of some 20 years. Israel has destroyed its airport, sea port, roads, bridges, culverts, civilian homes, hospitals, schools, power plants, etc. These are certainly not Hezbollah hideouts. Israel destroys everything in the name of destroying Hezbollah. Can Israel destroy Hezbollah? No, it has indeed gained huge strength now.

Above all, Israel has killed over 300 people, men women and children, in Lebanon and about 19 Lebanese soldiers. Prime Mister Fuad Siniora said more than one thousand Lebanese civilians have been injured. Over half a million Lebanese have left home and become refugees in Syria and other Arab states. Similar destructive forces are also being used in Gaza. Helpless and innocent Palestinians were killed by Israeli gun fire.

Israel launched terrible war against Lebanon and Palestinian territory knowing fully well that these are unarmed countries and they have no means to fight a war against mighty Israel. Could Israel launch such a war against a country equally equipped militarily? No, not at all. This is why it seems that Iran has been trying to have some deterrent in the form of nuclear bombs which could enable her to face nuclear Israel. Israel has been seriously blaming Iran for Lebanon crisis.

Delivery of such "disproportionate" and excessive force against the helpless population of a sovereign country like Lebanon and Palestinians amounts to war crime as a responsible government of a civilized country can never resort to such a massive war to obtain release of only three soldiers. Such a thing is unheard of in the civilized world.

The world has not turned out to be uncivilized; the UN is still working, though American unilateralism has somewhat marginalised the UN. The UN could help deal with situations like this and obtain release of kidnapped soldiers. But Israel has hardly anything to do with the UN. As long as America is there, Israel has nothing to worry. Indeed, the root of all problems in the Middle East is Israeli occupation and not Hezbollah, though sometimes Hezbollah acts irrationally.

The loss on Israeli side during nine days of war is also fairly high by Israeli standards. So far about 15 Israeli civilians and some 14 Israeli soldiers have been killed. Was it worth the release of three soldiers? This was simply unnecessary. Good diplomacy with some flexibility could do the job. The release of kidnapped soldiers should have been the major aim of Israel. Delivery of rockets could have been taken care of on temporary basis, but it is a matter that should be in the long term agenda in the context of over all vacation of occupation and establishment of peace.

Israel has not learnt any lesson from its past mistakes. It has again sent ground troops into South Lebanon, which it was forced to vacate in 2000 after sacrificing a great number of Israeli lives against even a bigger number of Lebanese lives. It is known that Israel vacated South Lebanon because of Hezbollah and this is why even the present pro-western Lebanese government says Hezbollah is a resistance force though Israel and its friends say it is a terrorist organisation. Under the present world order there is no acceptable definition of terrorism. So if the resistance forces are terrorists, then the occupiers are bigger terrorists.

The occupierIsraelmerrily kidnaps and keeps in custody foreign government ministers and parliament members, openly assassinates other countries' political leaders, indulges in death of civilians and destruction of civilian assets and government establishments. It does all these with total impunity. The whole world keeps quiet on such violation of international law by Israel or just uses the hollow word "restraint" which means nothing to Israel. It says it wants to finish the job of disarming Hezbollah as called for by the UN resolution 1559. But as experts like Gary Zatzman, a member of Jewish community point out, 1559 never called for disarming Hezbollah: "Resolution 1559 represents everything that has become so odious about the entire Security Council process at the UN. The provision interpreted as demanding Hezbollah to disarm says zero about Hezbollah. It says non-governmental militias that threaten the integrity of Lebanese state should be disarmed.... But the present (pro-western) Lebanese government ... does not consider the Hezbollah's militia as a threat to the integrity of Lebanese territory."

Israel says its incursion into south Lebanon on the seventh day of its operation is a temporary one but it is undoubtedly an invasion of a sovereign territory. Reports show heavy fighting between Israeli ground forces and Hezbollah fighters. Hezbollah also wanted ground fight as it cannot conduct aerial fighting. America and Israel say Syria and Iran are providing arms to Hezbollah. Now the question is: who provided arms including nuclear weapons to Israel?

The Stabilization Force that was discussed in G8 summit at St. Petersburg last week may go to Lebanon only after the UNSC approves the same. It would take some time. Better course for Israel would be to move out of South Lebanon immediately. With Ariel Sharon out of action, one would have expected better handling of the situation in Israel. But Ehud Olmert seems to be more arrogant than his mentor Ariel Sharon. It is unfortunate that even Shimon Peres appeared to have lost his good sense that enabled him to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.

The situation in Lebanon is out of control. Israel has said it must "finish" its job. A US official has said that Israel needs time to "defang" Hezbollah. The international community which has been looking for an immediate cease-fire to save innocent lives on both sides should see the areas of interest of both America and Israel in the Middle East.

So Israel has been allowed time and Israeli killing machines continue their operations against men, women and children of Lebanon and Palestine. Some Israeli men, women and children would also be sacrificed in the process by Israeli leadership.

However, it should be remembered that no power on Earth, starting from the Pharaohs through big empires like Greek, Roman, Persian, etc, all the way to Hitler could finish their jobs. They all had to abandon and go; all joined the pages of history. Same would happen to others too; only good deeds and good humanitarian works would prevail and not military might and arrogance.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador.