As the situation in Lebanon worsens, we can now see how closely Israel’s military strategy resembles that of its staunch ally, the United States. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert is pulling a George Bush by unilaterally invading another sovereign state in the name of fighting terrorism.
But the current conflict in Lebanon is even worse, geopolitically, than Bush’s Iraqi adventure. At least the U.S. made no bones about its desire to topple the existing government and stay until a new one was established. Successful or not, they are still there trying, as is the coalition force in Afghanistan.
In this case, Israel has essentially been allowed to wage an undeclared war against the state of Lebanon. This aggression has thrown the always volatile region into widespread panic, and must cease if full-scale conflict is to be avoided.
While it is fine to say that Lebanon remains divided from the last civil war and that Hezbollah controls the southern portion of the country, the land itself still belongs to Lebanon. The current ground assault, allegedly designed to root out terrorists, is still an illegal and unsanctioned invasion of another foreign state that should draw harsh criticism from the U.N. General Assembly, with or without American support.
The North American diplomatic response to this crisis has been underwhelming thus far. While U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has indicated that the Israeli campaign has been unbalanced considering the threats, she also chastised Hezbollah for “outrageous provocation” in the group’s bombing of the port city of Haifa. Yet such forceful language was unsurprisingly missing in her gentle request for Israel to stop killing civilians and bombing religious buildings.
For the west to support Israel now just because they are our traditional allies displays a lack of diplomatic subtlety, especially since Israel’s disproportionate actions so impudently flout international law. Stephen Harper’s simplistic analysis of the situation (“Obviously, there’s been an ongoing escalation. And frankly, ongoing escalation is inevitable once conflict begins”) would make Mike Pearson cringe. This attitude of expecting an inevitable endgame in matters of conflict makes Harper a perfect ally for Olmert, who used the regrettable kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers as a thin pretense for this massive assault.
While Hezbollah does indeed pose a threat to the security and lasting prosperity of both Israel and Lebanon, the Israeli incursions have done little to combat this group directly. Instead of killing militants, Israeli attacks are killing civilians, including many children. Instead of bombing weapons caches, they have hit oil reserves and harbours, crippling the country’s infrastructure as a precursor to the all-out ground war which is upon us. Does Hezbollah’s terrorism beget more terror from the self-styled beacon of democracy within the region?
Israel should at last stand up to the terror in such a way that will not propagate the cycle of destruction. It must instead join an international force to help address the root causes of the problem in the region. A ceasefire is the first step towards such a solution.
It may be naive to think that Hezbollah would negotiate-as Rice correctly noted, extremists can only be dealt with by isolation and removal from the process-but the current violence proves that each attack will only be met with greater violence. The “far-reaching consequences” promised by Israel’s Olmert will only bring further-reaching ones from Hezbollah, and on and on.
All war, justified or not, is terrible, and we are saddened by the hardships again suffered by the peoples of Israel and Lebanon. Yet we in the West cannot afford to retreat into our shells and wait till Israel finishes its business. Our leaders must reason and act decisively to stop this immoral destruction before the entire region again descends into chaos.
Israel’s aggressive foreign policy must be disarmed along with the guerillas of Hezbollah and Hamas if true peace in the region is to have a chance.
