|
|
|
Jewish World Review Sept. 21, 2007 / 9 Tishrei 5768 How not to help ‘moderates’ By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
According to the commander of Military Intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin,
Israel's raid in Syria on September 6 against what was reportedly a North
Korean-supplied nuclear installation in eastern Syria restored Israel's
deterrent posture which was so weakened in last summer's war in Lebanon.
Yet as the execution of anti-Syrian Lebanese parliamentarian Antoine Ghanem
in a Christian suburb of Beirut on Wednesday indicated, Israel's successful
raid did not derail Syria and Iran's pursuit of their strategic goals. Those
goals involve achieving regional domination through their proxies in
Lebanonas well as in Iraq and the Palestinian Authority.
In Iraq, the Americans and pursue a policy of military confrontation against
Shiite and Sunni forces that are supported and directed by Iran and Syria.
In contrast, in Lebanon and the PA, the Americans and the Israelis have
avoided decisive confrontations opting instead to advance a diplomatic
course aimed at bringing about the political defeat of Iranian and Syrian
proxies. In Lebanon, this involves supporting Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's
government against Hizbullah. In the PA it involves supporting Fatah against
Hamas.
It is still too early to know how the American strategy of military
confrontation against Iranian and Syrian proxies in Iraq will pan out. But
it is already clear that the American-Israeli strategy for contending with
Lebanon and the PA has failed.
Ghanem was a member of the Christian-Phalange party. He had announced his
intention to run in the presidential elections that will take place next
week in the Lebanese Parliament. With his assassination, the Syrians and
Iranians effectively completed their campaign of murder and intimidation
aimed at anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians. With Ghanem out of the picture,
the anti-Syrian forces lost the parliamentary majority of 72 out of 128
seats that they won in the 2005 general elections. Today, the anti-Syrian
coalition has only 64 sure votes. A presidential candidate needs a 65 vote
majority to be elected. Now the pro-Syrian forces have the ability to force
their presidential candidate on the country.
Led by Hizbullah, the pro-Syrian parliamentary bloc demands that a
"compromise" candidate who will bring "national unity" be elected to the
presidency next week. Their demand is openly supported by France, the UN and
Saudi Arabia. The Americans have not weighed in on the issue and so it can
be assumed that they too support it.
Although the demand for "compromise" and "unity" sounds like a call for
fairness and even stability, just the opposite is the case. In the Lebanese
context, "compromise" and "unity" can only serve to bring about the election
of yet another Syrian and Iranian puppet to the presidency. Like outgoing
President Emil Lahoud, such a leader will work to prevent Lebanon from
extricating itself from Iranian and Syrian influence and control.
That that the inclusion of pro-Syrian and Iranian elements in the Lebanese
government renders the government, regardless of its members' actual desires
an effective tool of Syria and Iran was made clear in last summer's war.
During the war, Hizbullah's membership in the Siniora government worked to
transform the Siniora government into a mouthpiece of Hizbullah and through
it, of Iran and Syria.
Many had hoped that Hizbullah's entry into Lebanese politics would signal
its integration into Lebanese society and force its leaders to dismantle
Hizbullah's military force. But the opposite occurred. Hizbullah's entry
into Lebanese politics — and into the Siniora government — consolidated
its position as a Syrian-Iranian state within the state in Lebanon. Rather
than distance itself from Hizbullah after Hizbullah launched its war against
Israel, the Siniora government actively assisted it both diplomatically and
militarily. With Hizbullah in the government, the Lebanese military openly
assisted its forces in attacking Israel and IDF troops.
Hizbullah used its governmental power to increase its influence over the
Lebanese military. With Shiites comprising 40 percent of the Lebanese army
and with army commander General Michel Suleiman being touted by pro-Syrian
forces as a "compromise" candidate for the presidency, it is impossible to
trust the Lebanese army's loyalty to the elected government. Indeed, since
the war, the Lebanese army has enabled Hizbullah to reassert its control
over southern Lebanon and has turned a blind eye to massive arms shipments
to Hizbullah coming across the Syrian border.
During last summer's war, in a bid to protect the ostensibly pro-Western
Siniora government, the US, France and the UN pressured Israel not to attack
Lebanese infrastructures. By so acting, the US, France and the UN ignored
the actual status of the government. While it talked the anti-Syria talk, it
walked the Hizbullah walk.
Siniora's inability or unwillingness to confront Hizbullah and to end its
status as an independent political and military force in Lebanon engendered
a situation where through their support for Lebanon's "unity" government,
the US, France and the UN effectively protected Hizbullah and preserved its
ability to maintain its independent position in Lebanon as a Syrian and
Iranian proxy against Israel. Since the cease-fire went into effect last
August, that protection has been maintained by UNIFIL forces stationed along
the border with Israel.
Last October Iran and Syria determined that Hizbullah had nothing more to
gain from remaining in the government and so they ordered it to resign. Ever
since, they have worked steadily to overthrow the government by politically
paralyzing it in parliament and, of course by assassinating its supporters.
At the same time, they have poured arms and cash on Hizbullah and ordered it
to expand its territorial control north of the Litani River while enacting
an ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon by preventing Christians who fled
their villages during the war from returning home.
Commentators warn that if the Lebanese Parliament does not elect a
pro-Syrian presidential candidate next week that President Lahoud is liable
to call general elections. Those elections, in turn are liable to give rise
to a situation where two separate governments operate in competition. That,
we are warned, will almost certainly foment a new civil war.
But given the fact that Hizbullah, together with Iran and Syria already
wield enormous power over the Lebanese army, it could be reasonably argued
that a renewed civil war is the least bad option. The more likely option —
that Iran and Syria will consolidate their domination of Lebanon — would be
far more destabilizing for the region and for Lebanon itself.
The fact of the matter is that the West's unconditional support for the
anti-Syrian forces in Lebanon has always been problematic. Even if Hizbullah
had not entered the government, Siniora and his colleagues never had
sufficient political or military will or power to fight Iran, Hizbullah and
Syria effectively. Indeed, many members of the anti-Syrian coalition are
anything but pro-Western.
Aside from the Siniora's government's inherent inability to assert its
control over the entire country by defeating Hizbullah and its sponsors,
there is the fact that the government's regional supporters have never been
interested in a confrontation with Hizbullah or Iran and Syria.
Specifically, the Saudi government, which acts as the Siniora government's
primary supporter in the Arab world, has consistently encouraged it to reach
an accommodation with Hizbullah rather than fight it. When the Saudi view is
contrasted with the consistent Iranian and Syrian goal of dominating
Lebanonthrough Hizbullah, it is clear that the political victory of
the anti-Syrian
and Iranian forces in 2005 was insufficient to defeat Hizbullah or free
Lebanon from the influence of Syria and Iran. It is after all impossible to
accommodate an opponent charged with destroying you.
The situation in the PA is strikingly similar to that in Lebanon. But it is
also far more problematic. As in the case of the contest between Hizbullah
and the Siniora government in Lebanon, so in the PA, the US, Israel and the
West in general have decided to support Fatah in its contest against the
Iranian and Syrian proxy Hamas.
Militarily, the desire to "strengthen" Fatah has led to a situation where
Israel has almost completely stopped its operations against Fatah terror
cells. Furthermore, it has abstained from taking action against Hamas's new
army in Gaza, lest an Israeli offensive somehow weaken Fatah.
Politically, Israel and the US are bending over backwards to appease Fatah
in the hopes that doing so will strengthen it against Hamas. Wednesday
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Israel in order to advance
the peace process with Fatah. On her way to Israel Rice told reporters, "We
can't simply continue to say we want a two-state solution. We've got to
start to move toward one."
For its part, the Olmert-Barak-Livni government already made clear through
official statements and leaks that it is ready to withdraw from Judea and
Samaria and to partition Jerusalem and surrender the Temple Mount.
The reason that the situation in the PA is worse than the situation in
Lebanon is because Fatah is not analogous to the Siniora government. For all
its weaknesses, the fact remains that the Siniora government truly seeks
Syrian and Iranian disengagement from the country. The same cannot be said
of Fatah. As the fighting this week between Fatah terrorists and the IDF in
Nablus indicates, far from objecting to terrorism and the war against Israel,
Fatah fights side by side with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Consequently, the
massive concessions that the Olmert-Barak-Livni government is now offering
Fatah will redound directly to Hamas's (and Iranian and Syrian) benefit.
This will be the case both if Israel actually implements those concessions
and if they are merely offered formally at Rice's summit in November.
Since Hizbullah quit the Siniora government in October, the Lebanese
leadership has rejected all of Hizbullah's demands for "unity." In contrast,
both before and since Hamas took over Gaza in June, Fatah has sought to join
a Hamas-dominated "unity" government. And while in Lebanon, Iran and
Syriaactively undermine Siniora and his colleagues, in PA, they assist
both Hamas
and Fatah. Both serve Iran and Syria's purpose of expanding and
consolidating their control over Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
In their handling of the situations in Lebanon and the PA, the US and
Israeli governments are implementing a strategy predicated on their refusal
to acknowledge the nature and significance of regional power struggles in
these theaters both for the West and for the Syrians and Iranians. As is the
case in Iraq, so in the cases of Lebanon and the PA, the possibility of
forming a "moderate" government will only materialize after the Lebanese and
Palestinian Iranian and Syrian proxies — Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah and
Islamic Jihad — are defeated.
Moreover, in spite of the IDF's bravado, the fact is that as long as these
proxy forces continue to exist and augment their powers, and as long as the
Syrian and Iranian regimes remain in power, no single military operation —
no matter how successful — can rebuild Israel's deterrent strength or ensure
its security.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
| ||||||||||
