---------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the dust is finally beginning to settle in Lebanon, and the refugees are starting to return to their homes. As the ceasefire took hold, both Israeli PM Olmert and Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbu'llah, moved quickly to publicly claim that they had achieved "strategic victory."
Israeli spokesmen (and Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US State Department) have desperately been trying to spin the current situation to their favour - claiming success against Hizbu'llah when to everyone else it appears as if Israel's assault failed to secure its objectives. The IDF demonstrated, once again, that it has amazing destructive power at its disposal but it has proven to be a blunt instrument. Despite repeated claims to the contrary there is little evidence that Hizbu'llah's missile-launching capabilities were ever severely affected - on the last full day of hostilities a record-breaking 250 missiles were reportedly fired at northern Israel. The drive towards the Litani river floundered in the face of a well organised and dogged resistance. Meanwhile, Israel has now been forced to enter into negotiations to secure the release of its two captured soldiers.
The bitter recriminations amongst the Israeli civilian and military leadership resulting from this long-planned but ultimately counter-productive war have already begun. If Olmert entered this war hoping to look like the tough guy he has failed - unable to defeat a relatively small guerrilla force with what is widely seen to be the strongest military in the Middle East. The Israeli public that was initially so gung ho in calling for Hizbu'llah to be crushed did not respond kindly to seeing 500,000 inhabitants of the north forced to flee or spend four weeks huddled in bomb shelters as the rockets came raining down.
Nevertheless, it is hard to talk of a Lebanese victory when the country has been so devastated - more than 1,000 people have been killed (including several hundred children), and thousands more maimed. The Israeli military bombed 94 roads, 70 bridges, 4 ports, 3 airports and 22 petrol stations. It caused $173 million worth of damage to water and telecommunications infrastructure and $208 million of damages to electrical production and distribution facilities. The damaged power station at Jiyeh leaked 10,000 tonnes of heavy oil into the Mediterranean Sea, polluting some 80 km of coastline – an environmental and financial disaster given the importance of tourism to the Lebanese economy. In total the value of the damage has been estimated at $2.4 billion.
[source: www.lebanonmaps.org]There is also the often forgotten issue of unexploded munitions. On top of an estimated 400,000 mines laid by Israel between 1978 and 2000, the southern Lebanese landscape is now littered with large numbers of cluster bomblets which have already killed and injured many returning civilians. The fighting may have stopped but the killing continues.
Despite this, Nasrallah can claim to have led Hizbu'llah to a victory - of sorts. Their secrecy precludes a full accounting but it would seem as if the Party of God weathered the IDF's four week onslaught remarkably well. In particular Hizbu’llah’s armed wing has proved that it is a force to be reckoned with, equipped with sophisticated anti-tank and anti-ship missiles that it was able to utilise with devastating effectiveness. The proverbial Arab street now credits Hizbu’llah with achieveing something that the Arab armies and the PLO so conspicuously failed to do – namely humble Israeli military might. Thus, at the end of the conflict Nasrallah and Hizbu'llah are enjoying elevated levels of support, in Lebanon and in the wider Arab world.
In Damascus the current support for Hizbu'llah crosses sectarian and even religious lines. For example, the streets of Bab Touma, the Christian Quarter, are just as adorned with the yellow and green flags of Hizbu'llah as predominantly Muslim areas. When people are asked about why they support Hizbu’llah a common response is “they do what they say,” in marked contrast with the Arab governments who are perceived as talking a lot but delivering very little. The muted response to President Assad’s speech is revealing, contrasting with the enthusiastic reception for Nasrallah’s regular Al Manar broadcasts.
In the last few weeks it has been noticeable that Al Manar, Hizbu'llah's TV station, has supplanted Al Jazeera as the news (or maybe that should be propaganda?) network of choice for many Syrians. To a certain extent this had official backing: for example, the giant TV screens in Aleppo train station were tuned to the station. Nevertheless, this was not just a top-down phenomenon, with many TV sets in shops, cafes and hotels that were previously tuned to Al Jazeera switching to Al Manar. Thus, Hizbu’llah’s TV station has also emerged stronger from the conflict, having successfully defied Israeli attacks on its facilities to continue to broadcast some of the defining images of the conflict.
Maybe this overwhelming support will be a short-term trend, that will fade quickly as the relief at the end of hostilities gives way to the restoration of banal political life. Certainly Nasrallah cannot afford to bask for too long in the glory of this unprecedented reverse for Israel. Instead he must face several challenges. One of the most pressing is the issue of reconstruction. He already began to address this in his first speech after the ceasefire, in which he offered to provide housing and pay compensation to the thousands who have lost their homes. Given that the destruction was concentrated on residential areas where Hizbu'llah support was strongest (south of the Litani river, south Beirut, Baalbek and the Beqa’a valley), most of the recipients are likely to already be Hizbu'llah's constituents for whom the organisation already has a proven record of service provision (Hizbu'llah's annual social services budget is reportedly $1 billion).
However, it remains to be seen how the issue of reconstruction will play out among Lebanese society as a whole, which now finds itself with a devastated infrastructure and economy. Whilst Israeli bombs were raining down criticisms of Hizbu'llah were muted but in the coming days I expect a return to normality. Nevertheless, Washington's conspicuous military and political complicity in the Israeli onslaught has done much to disillusion Lebanon's secular and Westernised middle class and weaken the hand of the pro-American/anti-Syrian pole of Lebanese politics.
A greater challenge that will quickly emerge is the issue of disarmament, called for in the recently passed UN Resolution 1701 (which, following in the footsteps of the Taif Accords which ended the Lebanese Civil War and UN resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), demands "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon"). Last night Nasrallah said it was "immoral, incorrect and inappropriate" to consider the issue at present. Instead he claimed, with some justification, that his fighters alone, not the Lebanese army or international peacekeepers, could protect southern Lebanon from Israel. This claim, coupled with his refusal to disarm in haste or in the face of "intimidation, pressure or provocation", would seemingly put Hizbu'llah on a collision course with the expanded UN Peacekeeping force that is due to deploy soon. Let us hope the situation does not follow the pattern set in 1983 when the mainly American and French Multinational Force became embroiled in the Civil War and suffered horrendous losses.
Therefore the present moment undoubtedly belongs to Hizbu'llah, but the future remains fraught with difficulties. At best the current ceasefire (which, sporadic firefights aside, has so far been adhered to) will offer only a short respite from the ongoing Lebanese-Israeli conflict. A lasting peace would still seem to be a long, hard journey ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment