The Israeli/Hezbollah conundrum

By Dick Tunison

I wrote a friend the other day saying I was becoming frustrated at my inability to get my arms around the expanding fighting along the Lebanese border. Reading the most recent series of seven Stratfor Intelligence Reports, I find that I’m not alone. Even the experts have to modify their assessments on a daily basis. The demonstrated aggressiveness of the Islamic fanatics in southern Lebanon has surprised many because of the understood strength of a well-equipped Israeli Army ready to defend its land.

Israel has had extended experience occupying southern Lebanon. Israeli forces moved into the territory in 1982 and stayed eighteen years in an attempt to maintain peace, but finally gave up in the year 2000. The Lebanese government has shown no more success in its own efforts to pacify its own land. The US also met with problems when terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in 1983 killing over two hundred of our own.

According to Wikipedia, the Internet fact and historical resource, “Hezbollah or Hizbollah/Hizbullah or Hezb'Allah (Arabic: حزب الله‎, meaning Party of God) is a governmental and military Lebanese Shia Islamic group, with a military arm and a civilian arm, founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Defense Forces who occupied southern Lebanon until the year 2000. Its leader is Hassan Nasrallah.

“Hezbollah was inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution and was formed primarily to combat Israeli occupation following the 1982 Lebanon War. The United States and Israel say that Hezbollah has received financial and political assistance, as well as weapons and training, from Iran and Syria. Syria says it supports Hezbollah, but denies supplying it with weapons. Along with the Amal movement, Hezbollah is the main political party and military organization representing the Shia community, Lebanon's largest religious bloc. Founded with the aid of Iran and funded by it, Hezbollah follows the distinct Shia Islamic ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, who saw his destiny as the elimination of Israel and the death of all infidels.”

At this point some observers are suggesting that it’s Syria, not Iran, that is pushing Hezbollah into action, but such thinking seems in the minority. Since Iran has served as the “patron saint” behind the movement since its inception in 1982, and it appears Iranian rockets have been used in this battle for the most part, I tend to think Iran is behind the action against Israel. There is a very logical reason for this. Iran has been in the international hot seat these past months because of her persistence in pursuing nuclear weapons. Fomenting a skirmish between Lebanese/Hezbollah and Israeli forces creates a marvelous distraction for the UN Security Council. Even matters concerning the nutty Kim Jung Il and North Korea have slipped off the radar screen as a result of this distraction.

It’s interesting to me that even the weak-kneed Europeans have had their concern level escalated by Hezbollah’s actions. Any suggestion that the initiation of hostilities lies at the feet of Israel seems without merit in light of the known facts. Never mind that Kofi Annan, from his headquarters high above Metropolis, wants to blame the Israelis for overreacting to a “minor threat.”

As things stand at this moment, it appears that everyone except the Hezbollah itself seems surprised at its strength and ability to utilize rocketry, let alone the idea that the group possesses thousands of such weapons, some quite old, dating back to the latter part of the Second World War, along with some capable of reaching far into Israel. The notion that attacks from the north might reach as far south as Haifa and Jerusalem seems not to have been considered. The result of this predicament is that responding to Hezbollah is trickier than anticipated.

There has been considerable talk about a cease fire and the intervention of foreign diplomats to help resolve the situation. Such an act alone is bound to fail because the current fighting is not the only problem. It’s the fact that Hezbollah may be a potent force far into the future despite the diplomacy of the day unless the force is successfully neutered.

The use of a strong incursion of Israeli ground forces to wipe out the Hezbollah fighters has also been advocated. But this proposal requires prior actions involving air attacks on strategic targets that so far have not been easily identified. Many of the Hezbollah installations are mobile and easily moved and are often mixed in with mosques, schools and hospitals in ways that preclude even the so-called surgical attacks from the air. The lack of Intel in southern Lebanon by interested parties such as the United States and Israel has made information on Hezbollah force distribution difficult to come by, and Israel has suffered as a result. There was a time when Israeli and American intelligence experts were able to remain disguised while doing their work north of the border, but that became more difficult as years passed to the point it’s virtually non-existent today. Intruding intelligence gatherers would be quickly discovered because of the integration of Hezbollah and ordinary Lebanese citizens who are now far more vigilant.

Again, some experts are calling for a UN resolution that will bind the northern aggressor. But Hezbollah has not paid any attention to earlier United Nations demands, so it’s hard to see why that should be any different. Even if the UN should send in a peacekeeping force with a tough mandate it would require a dedication to change from UN past practices of sleeping while the worm spins its yarn. Any required action on the part of peacekeepers would need to be immediate and strong, not timid and impotent. So, if and when the UN is called into play, things must be pretty much resolved, signed, sealed and delivered well in advance. There is no way we can rely on UN peacekeepers to operate with certitude in a difficult and challenging confrontation with an opposing military force.

I believe this engagement along the Lebanese/Israeli border is frightening and requires a lot of creative thought toward a concrete resolution before the world can once again settle down with a sense of peace. When we listen to the rhetoric coming from a large sector of the Muslim world and see the intensity of action now being taken against Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan who only want a chance to live safely as a sovereign nations, we should quickly come to the realization that the irrational Islamic threat to the rest of us cannot be ignored. Even though this may not be the third world war, as some pundits claim, it is certainly the pre-amble to it.

The United States has been mostly criticized by the Western World for taking action in Afghanistan and Iraq even though there have been clearly despotic governments threatening others and oppressing their people. The promise for better societies and peace in those two countries and among their neighbors as a result of President Bush’s insistence on intervention has not yet been shown to be off base. Maybe it’s time for the Europeans to start smelling reality rather than the flowers. The resolution we should all be seeking is one that will bring about the disarmament of Hezbollah for its penchant for disruptive and malicious behavior, the strengthening of the Lebanese government so it can control what’s going on within its own borders, recognition on the part of Syria that her playing with bad boys will not be tolerated by the major international powers, and that Israel must be accepted as a sovereign nation with all the rights it deserves.

This is no longer a game, but a real-life challenge. The radical Islamists are threatening our lives, security and very future. The hate among them aimed at our way of life is clear. Even the children – too young to understand – are being raised up in the ways of blind hate, death and destruction. How can we, at this point in time, not see the handwriting on the wall?

Those who prefer to downplay this reality and, like Neville Chamberlain, advocate restraint, useless diplomacy, more talk and “understanding,” in the face of great danger need be put in their place by the clearer thinkers among us before it’s too late.